Is Thor the best Marvel Studios movie so far?

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by conan69

Ill take a film that attempts to say something and may fail, over a film that gives me nothing to think about anyday. Unfortunately, not only most superhero films, but most films in general are brainless, and dumb, and thats why I watch so few movies and dont watch any television except whats really on premium channels(since they have the freedom to deal with more weighty issues).

Superheroes are really mythology - Superman, Batman,etc.. these characters often deal with themes that go way back through classic storytelling. They dont have to be dumb action films.

Yes TDK has plotholes and it isnt perfect, but it deals with themes I find interesting.

I'm the opposite. I appreciate a film that aims high, but only if it actually manages to hit what it aims for. Points aren't awarded for failure. I'd rather have a film that aimed a little lower and succeeded in hitting it's target. Then I feel like I got a complete product for my $.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I'm the opposite. I appreciate a film that aims high, but only if it actually manages to hit what it aims for. Points aren't awarded for failure. I'd rather have a film that aimed a little lower and succeeded in hitting it's target. Then I feel like I got a complete product for my $.

Agreed

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Yeah, it is demanding as a movie. Nothing wrong with that unless you can't/don't want to go through it.

Well see, I can sit though 4 hours of Apocalypse Now Redux or Schindler's List pretty comfortably. I can't sit through 2 and a half hours of The Dark Knight. It just bores me to tears.

[Lord]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Well see, I can sit though 4 hours of Apocalypse Now Redux or Schindler's List pretty comfortably. I can't sit through 2 and a half hours of The Dark Knight. It just bores me to tears.

Really? I never understood how people found The Dark Knight boring, there was allways something going on and there's even good action and storytelling.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by Lord

Really? I never understood how people found The Dark Knight boring, there was allways something going on and there's even good action and storytelling.

I can't say I so much found it boring as the entire film makes me want to do this

and then leaves me feeling like this .

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Lord

Really? I never understood how people found The Dark Knight boring, there was allways something going on and there's even good action and storytelling.

I thought the action was mediocre. And that's putting it very nicely. The fight scenes were choreographed and edited horrendously. And I just couldn't stand the exposition heavy dialogue. People go on about The Dark Knight being subtle and intelligent? It's not. It's about as subtle as a sledge hammer and it treats the audience like idiots. Highlighted by Gordon's monologue at the end of the film explaining the entire theme of the movie as though we're too stupid to understand what just transpired in the last 2 and a half hours. It was like he was breaking the fourth wall, talking directly to us. The same could be said for a lot of the dialogue really.

And I just didn't care about Bruce Wayne/Batman... at all. He was uninteresting and a bit of a douche, really. I liked Harvey Dent's story arc, and I enjoyed Joker's scenes. But yea, that's about it.

[weezerspider]

Why does every Rate and Review *INSERT SUPERHERO FILM TITLE* thread end up being a TDK debate? Probably because its the most successful Superhero Film out there, but its clear Marvel is not focused on making their films more than "fun", so there isn't much reason to debate. Thor did everything it tried to do right, same with TDK. The difference is Christopher Nolan doesn't handle his Batman films as a "fun superhero flick". Not saying Nolan's treatment is the right or wrong way, but aside from Watchmen, his Batman films are the only superhero films who try that approach, so why compare? TDK did what it tried to do fairly well, so did Thor. They just attempted different things. Neither one of them have a better or worse approach on superhero films, it just comes down to a matter of opinion.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by weezerspider

Why does every Rate and Review *INSERT SUPERHERO FILM TITLE* thread end up being a TDK debate? Probably because its the most successful Superhero Film out there, but its clear Marvel is not focused on making their films more than "fun", so there isn't much reason to debate. Thor did everything it tried to do right, same with TDK. The difference is Christopher Nolan doesn't handle his Batman films as a "fun superhero flick". Not saying Nolan's treatment is the right or wrong way, but aside from Watchmen, his Batman films are the only superhero films who try that approach, so why compare? TDK did what it tried to do fairly well, so did Thor. They just attempted different things. Neither one of them have a better or worse approach on superhero films, it just comes down to a matter of opinion.

This

[kedrell]

Simple answer: because Nolanites insist on coming in and comparing them.

[MAN-BRUTE]

as much as i loved iron man, i voted for thor here. with this film for the first time i actually felt like i was watching a marvel comic come to life in front of me. the scene where thor gets mjolnir back actually moved me to tears (and i`m a 33 year old guy!) it was so perfect to what i had imagined and hoped to see.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Simple answer: because batfans insist on coming in and comparing them.

There are plenty of batfans who hate TDK and plenty of non-comic fans who love the film, so lets not go blaming a group of fans just because their favorite superhero has the most successful(critically and financially) superhero film.

I think its because most people, regardless of their favorite hero, see TDK has the best superhero film, or they acknowledge it is the most successful, so they compare every superhero film to it. It is in a class of its own, not necessarily because of its quality, but because of its approach. Like I said, Nolan's batman films are not about simply having fun. The others are. I personally prefer TDK, but I find heavy dialogue films "fun", call me crazy, but neither approach is right or wrong.

[kedrell]

I'd say that for all fans who went to see either Flash Gordon in 1980 and/or MOTU in the late 80's and were disappointed that they sucked....Thor is the movie you've been waiting for.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Simple answer: because batfans insist on coming in and comparing them.

True

[weezerspider]

I'm also surprised that a few of you have IM2 about TIH. It seems everyone loved TIH when it was released and everyone seems to bash IM2.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by weezerspider

There are plenty of batfans who hate TDK and plenty of non-comic fans who love the film, so lets not go blaming a group of fans just because their favorite superhero has the most successful(critically and financially) superhero film.

My fault, I should have said Nolanites.

I think its because most people, regardless of their favorite hero, see TDK has the best superhero film, or they acknowledge it is the most successful, so they compare every superhero film to it. It is in a class of its own, not necessarily because of its quality, but because of its approach. Like I said, Nolan's batman films are not about simply having fun. The others are. I personally prefer TDK, but I find heavy dialogue films "fun", call me crazy, but neither approach is right or wrong.

Actually Spider-Man(2002) is when talking about numbers of tickets sold world wide. It adjusts above TDK and even Superman(1978). No other superhero film has ever been so successful.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by weezerspider

I'm also surprised that a few of you have IM2 about TIH. It seems everyone loved TIH when it was released and everyone seems to bash IM2.

That was never true. It's just that those who liked b*tching about it were the most persistant around here. I felt no need to keep on defending it. It stands on it's own w/o any help from me and the public liked it. Critics did as well. Whether some fanboys got their panties in a bunch over it was hardly worth worrying about.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by kedrell

That was never true. It's just that those who liked b*tching about it were the most persistant around here. I felt no need to keep on defending it. It stands on it's own w/o any help from me and the public liked it. Critics did as well. Whether some fanboys got their panties in a bunch over it was hardly worth worrying about.

That's pretty much how I feel about it as well.

[J.Howlett]

As of today, Iron Man.

A second viewing of Thor could change that but I don't see it.

But, anything's possible.

I thought the action was mediocre. And that's putting it very nicely. The fight scenes were choreographed and edited horrendously. And I just couldn't stand the exposition heavy dialogue. People go on about The Dark Knight being subtle and intelligent? It's not. It's about as subtle as a sledge hammer and it treats the audience like idiots. Highlighted by Gordon's monologue at the end of the film explaining the entire theme of the movie as though we're too stupid to understand what just transpired in the last 2 and a half hours. It was like he was breaking the fourth wall, talking directly to us. The same could be said for a lot of the dialogue really.

And I just didn't care about Bruce Wayne/Batman... at all. He was uninteresting and a bit of a douche, really. I liked Harvey Dent's story arc, and I enjoyed Joker's scenes. But yea, that's about it.

And no. Just no. But, this is a Marvel thread so....

[kedrell]

If we keep bringing that which shall not be named up, then it's never gonna go away.

[J.Howlett]

Couldn't help it...it's a tick I have when people have a go at "it that shall not be named."

Frankly, I miss the Marvel of pre-2005.

[kedrell]

Frankly I hope to never see that Marvel again(too many bad ideas, IMO). Hell, I don't much want to see anything Marvel pre-2008 again. Those were the stumbling block years.

And I know about the tick. It's just for the exact opposite reason with me.

[jmc]

This is a really bizarre poll considering they've only made two good films.

[misjuevos]

i always have to say this, movies are subjective, you like what you like. people have different taste, variety is the spice of life. its ok to like this over that and that doesn't mean one is better than the other. just that you like what you like.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by misjuevos

i always have to say this, movies are subjective, you like what you like. people have different taste, variety is the spice of life. its ok to like this over that and that doesn't mean one is better than the other. just that you like what you like.

There is a difference from "This is my favorite film" and "This is the best film ever made". Of course I studied film for half of my life, so I have a very easy time of flipping the switch from film analysis and watching for entertainment. None of my top ten favorite films would be in what I would consider the top top ten films of all time. I dunno, all art is subjective in one way and in another way, it isn't. Its no different than film. It is possible to look at quality of something without having your personal preferences intervening.

[misjuevos]

im not sure that is true. if you like the way a movie is shot that is based on your preferences , if you like the story it's also based on what you were looking for or how you wanted to feel.