Is Thor the best Marvel Studios movie so far?

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by BigThor

My comment still stands as well, that is an aspect that should be taken into consideration when comparing films.

I disagree, but oh well.

[BigThor]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

You came in here to bash Thor. OK fine

I never understood why people go into a particular film's forum just to bash it, if I don't like a film I'm certainly not going to go into a forum specifically dedicated to that film.

I'm just making a general statement by the way.

[Hoblin]

Am I the only one that thinks Spider-Man 1 was beter than Spider-Man 2?

[BigThor]

^ I don't know, but I sure don't, although there's nothing wrong with that because it's YOUR opinion.

[Raiden]

I would still put Iron Man 1 as #1, simply because it was such a fun movie, and RDJ was amazingly funny and cool as Tony Stark. Here's my ranking for Marvel Studio movies:

1. Iron Man 1
2. Thor
3. IM 2
4. TIH

[Fanticon]

I'm gonna have to say Iron Man is still the best but Thor is a very close second. Followed by TIH and IM2. I hope Captain America blows us all away though!

[Tony Stark]

Originally Posted by Hoblin

Am I the only one that thinks Spider-Man 1 was beter than Spider-Man 2?

No I've heard others, probably not a majority opinion, but there are others. I'm also one who liked Batman Begins better than The Dark Knight, other than Heath's performance.

[The Sage]

I've got to see it a second time, but Iron Man's still the best out of the Marvel Studio films so far, though Thor had a better third act IMO.

I might my change my mind in two months though...

[Vartha]

lol

[The Batman]

one thing i like about all the marvel studio movies is that none of their love interests suck, IMO. The romantic aspects were well done most of the time

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

What you just described is they lost their "newness." So has IM1 and TIH. One day Thor will lose it too. It probably doesn't help that most people on this board watch these films way more than intended. They're mean to be broad entertainments. Sometimes they are made sharply and intelligently by filmmakers who want to make a good movie (Sam Raimi, Bryan Singer, Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh), but with the exception of Christopher Nolan, few have attempted to make thematically dense cinema. In short: watching something like X2, Spider-Man 2 or Thor a lot leads to tedious predictability because they're not films meant for you to gain something with each viewing. The're meant to excite and impress on first and second viewing...not 20th.

In that context, Thor will fall to the same fate as you said of SM2 and X2. But the first two Raimi and Singer efforts hold up as very good movies. That is not hte case for half of Marvel Studio's efforts (TIH and IM2), while the other half I feel have glaring weaknesses on their first viewings. Iron Man is a boring film to me these days. I just don't watch it a lot and can keep my high opinion of it succeeding at what it aimed to be....a fun escapist popcorn movie. A good one. Albeit, SM2 (and, imo, SM1) did it better.

Heh, well we're on such different pages that it's not even funny. Arguing the various points I think would ultimately get us nowhere. Fans rarely change their minds on such things. All I can say is enjoy your Raimi, Singer & Nolan films and I'll stick pretty much just to the MCU myself.

[Rock Sexton]

Thor is my new No.1 .... took a lot to knock TIH off it's throne, but it captured my imagination, made me laugh, and made me care about the characters. More importantly it "felt" like watching a comic book on screen, which is what I loved so much about TIH.

Iron Man was a film I just never liked all that much beyond RDJ's acting. The suit is cool to look at and he's as clever as they come, but the fights bored me to death. The middle east portion of the film was lame, even though I understand it was necessary to move the plot and Tony's decision to stop building weapons. Again, it was just RDJ in an expensive robotic suit being witty.

[kedrell]

TIH made me feel like I was watching the TV show on screen(mixed a bit with Ultimate Hulk). Neither of which I was ever much a fan of.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Heh, well we're on such different pages that it's not even funny. Arguing the various points I think would ultimately get us nowhere. Fans rarely change their minds on such things. All I can say is enjoy your Raimi, Singer & Nolan films and I'll stick pretty much just to the MCU myself.

In a nutshell though, you were saying that SM2 and X2 were not as entertaining to you 2-3 years later after multiple viewings, no? The point still stands that movies meant for quick consumption (like superhero films) are not going to hold up over intense scrutiny and years of viewing. You may prefer the MCU films, but they lose their luster too. IM1 in many ways is just following the formula of SM1 which followed the formula of STM. It's a vicious cycle.

Also, I'm not dissing all MCU films. I like IM1 and Thor and I appreciate what they're trying to do by making one connected movie universe. But there is a degree of franchise control to these films where they always have to be hyping and marketing the next one a year or two down the line, and also a sense that the directors are being restricted from leaving any sense of auteur stamp. It limits them creatively, in my opinion.

[The Batman]

DACrowe is right.

[kaijunexus]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

In a nutshell though, you were saying that SM2 and X2 were not as entertaining to you 2-3 years later after multiple viewings, no? The point still stands that movies meant for quick consumption (like superhero films) are not going to hold up over intense scrutiny and years of viewing. You may prefer the MCU films, but they lose their luster too. IM1 in many ways is just following the formula of SM1 which followed the formula of STM. It's a vicious cycle.

So what do you watch? Only newly released films, Memento and Inception? Your opinion of 90% of blockbuster films actually degrades relative to the number of viewings over time? I may periodically tire of things I enjoy, but I don't stop enjoying them. I might move on to other things for a while, but I'll eventually come back to anything I had fun watching. And when I do, I almost never find the film worse than when I left it.

People like certain films for a reason...because they LIKE THE FILMS. They also watch those films multiple times for that same reason. Your logic doesn't make sense.

I like pizza. If I eat pizza for a week straight, I'm going to be a little tired of pizza. I might not eat pizza for a month. My personal opinion of pizza has not changed, however.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by kaijunexus

So what do you watch? Only newly released films, Memento and Inception? Your opinion of 90% of blockbuster films actually degrades relative to the number of viewings over time? I may periodically tire of things I enjoy, but I don't stop enjoying them. I might move on to other things for a while, but I'll eventually come back to anything I had fun watching. And when I do, I almost never find the film worse than when I left it.

People like certain films for a reason...because they LIKE THE FILMS. They also watch those films multiple times for that same reason. Your logic doesn't make sense.

I like pizza. If I eat pizza for a week straight, I'm going to be a little tired of pizza. I might not eat pizza for a month. My personal opinion of pizza has not changed, however.

Don't take offense. The answer is I don't watch most blockbusters a whole lot. When I first came to these boards I watched X1, SM1, X2, etc. countless times (now I really can't watch them at all because I have them too well-memorized), but these days I appreciate blockbusters that are well made and enjoy them for what they are. But most of them aren't meant for massive consumption (though not all, for example LOTR, The Dark Knight, Inception, and IMO the first POTC come to mind). It would be like eating pizza....but only pizza. It just gets boring and nutritionally unfulfilling.

And for me the answer is to watch more than blockbusters. Just last year had a slew of great films released. Some were blockbusters and popcorn entertainment (like Inception, Toy Story 3, Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass come to mind) but there was also The Social Network, Black Swan, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Fighter, True Grit, Shutter Island, 127 Hours, The King's Speech, Rabbit Hole, etc.

I'm not trying to be snobby....just saying that if you cast a wide net, you won't over-scrutinize on just the fan movies. And the ones that I really love, I revisit (TSN, Black Swan and KA for me, though I'm not saying you have to like what I like). Same with rewatching films. If I'm going to rewatch a movie I've seen a dozen times, I prefer it to be The Godfather, Shadow of a Doubt, Double Indemnity, The Graduate, Network, Singing in the Rain, Casablanca, Bridge Over the River Kwai, Goodfellas, The Godfather, Jaws, Back to the Future, etc. Just not superhero films that mostly follow the same formula and story structure.

This is coming off way-snobbier than I intended. What I'm trying to say is a movie that has so much going for it that you can watch it dozens of times and always take away something different from it (perfect example: LA Confidential) is more fun to revisit than a formulaic piece that never lives up to that first experience (perfect example: Spider-Man). I'll stop now before I sound anymore unintentionally elitist. If anyone knows what I'm saying, feel free to add in.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by The Batman

DACrowe is right.

Very.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by The Batman

DACrowe is right.

Sorry, I just got a flash of the church scene from Blazing Saddles.

[The Sage]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

In a nutshell though, you were saying that SM2 and X2 were not as entertaining to you 2-3 years later after multiple viewings, no? The point still stands that movies meant for quick consumption (like superhero films) are not going to hold up over intense scrutiny and years of viewing. You may prefer the MCU films, but they lose their luster too. IM1 in many ways is just following the formula of SM1 which followed the formula of STM. It's a vicious cycle.

Also, I'm not dissing all MCU films. I like IM1 and Thor and I appreciate what they're trying to do by making one connected movie universe. But there is a degree of franchise control to these films where they always have to be hyping and marketing the next one a year or two down the line, and also a sense that the directors are being restricted from leaving any sense of auteur stamp. It limits them creatively, in my opinion.

I had gotten that feeling from Thor, even though I enjoyed the film.

[kedrell]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

In a nutshell though, you were saying that SM2 and X2 were not as entertaining to you 2-3 years later after multiple viewings, no?

No, I was describing how the general tone of everyone around here changed in that time. I was never enamoured with them to the extent that most seemed to be initially around here. Did I like them more upon first viewing? Yes, but with each that was the best reaction they ever got out of me. Repeat viewings did nothing but lessen them for me(as opposed to the MCU films and a few rare others which got better and more enjoyable as I saw them more).

The point still stands that movies meant for quick consumption (like superhero films) are not going to hold up over intense scrutiny and years of viewing. You may prefer the MCU films, but they lose their luster too. IM1 in many ways is just following the formula of SM1 which followed the formula of STM. It's a vicious cycle.

If executed with excellence I'd say they CAN hold up and the truly good ones do just that. And the MCU films may indeed lose their luster in time(and as better iterations supplant them) but I for one haven't seen it yet. There are a few non-MCU superhero films that I'd say also have achieved this(at least for me). I don't count any of the Raimi or Singer superhero films among them though.

Also, I'm not dissing all MCU films. I like IM1 and Thor and I appreciate what they're trying to do by making one connected movie universe. But there is a degree of franchise control to these films where they always have to be hyping and marketing the next one a year or two down the line, and also a sense that the directors are being restricted from leaving any sense of auteur stamp. It limits them creatively, in my opinion.

Firstly, auteur's have largely been responsible for the crappiest one's we've ever gotten. They have a tendancy to think they're smarter than the material and that it's fine to change things based on their own sensibilities. That's not to say they all were like that, but I'd say the lion's share were.

I virtually never go see a superhero movie because I'm a fan of the director. I either am interested in the property enough to check it out or I'm not. But then I have never claimed to be a film fan. I'm just a fan of this genre in film. 99.9% of films that make it to the Oscars I couldn't be bothered to even care about, much less watch(even if they were free). So that's where I'm coming from.

But back to creative limitation, it really only seems to be this way with the films leading up to the Avengers(which is by no means the end of the road for any of them). I think afterward such concerns will disipate even though the MCU will still be chugging along. It actually will end up allowing even greater creative possibilities in the long run(creative freedom such as the early comics writers had to pick from a large universe of possibilities in telling their stories).

And even with all these pre-Avengers films so far I'd say that the trade off in constraints has been good for the films as it has kept the filmmakers focused and not prone to going off into unnecessary and useless tangents that they otherwise might have played around with. But then, I don't trust auteurs to put the properties they've been made stewards of ahead of their own artsy-fartsy egos.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by kedrell

Firstly, auteur's have largely been responsible for the crappiest one's we've ever gotten. They have a tendancy to think they're smarter than the material and that it's fine to change things based on their own sensibilities. That's not to say they all were like that, but I'd say the lion's share were.

I virtually never go see a superhero movie because I'm a fan of the director. I either am interested in the property enough to check it out or I'm not. But then I have never claimed to be a film fan. I'm just a fan of this genre in film. 99.9% of films that make it to the Oscars I couldn't be bothered to even care about, much less watch(even if they were free). So that's where I'm coming from.

But back to creative limitation, it really only seems to be this way with the films leading up to the Avengers(which is by no means the end of the road for any of them). I think afterward such concerns will disipate even though the MCU will still be chugging along. It actually will end up allowing even greater creative possibilities in the long run(creative freedom such as the early comics writers had to pick from a large universe of possibilities in telling their stories).

And even with all these pre-Avengers films so far I'd say that the trade off in constraints has been good for the films as it has kept the filmmakers focused and not prone to going off into unnecessary and useless tangents that they otherwise might have played around with. But then, I don't trust auteurs to put the properties they've been made stewards of ahead of their own artsy-fartsy egos.

If you're referring to Ang Lee for the Hulk or Singer's Superman Returns for the "crappy superhero" films, I may agree. But I think the most memorable ones have some trace of humanity and artistic identity. Whether you like that artistic stamp or not is one thing, but Christopher Nolan's Batman films (particularly The Dark Knight), Tim Burton's Batman films and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 (the other two were more compromised, though still distinctly Raimi) have such personality that they stand out. They look like filets compared to the pre-packaged fast food-vibe in Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk. It was exactly those restrictions that frustrated Favreau off the Iron Man franchise to less confined pastures.

I actually think Thor borders on being Branagh's film more than Marvel. Unlike TIH, IM2 or even IM1, it doesn't feel like it is really part of a franchise marketing machine other than the after-credits scene and a throwaway reference to Stark. Otherwise you could just call SHIELD the FBI and it stands apart form the rest of the MCU. The best parts of the movie, the visionary scope and rich, opulent composition is certainly a credit to the director of Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing and not the studio the IM films and TIH. Also, the Freudian subtexts of the relationships between Odin and his two sons and how that affected each of them was the best part of the movie and felt very Branagh.

It isn't his entire movie though as it is saddled with a rather forced romance (romance is a good thing, but Thor loves Jane was shoehorned in) and some humor that reeked of desperation at times (most of Kat Denning's dialogue, though she is so good and Branagh so manic they make it work well enough). But it borders on being something wholly unique....just not quite there.

I see you dislike a strong cinematic hand, but to many it gives movies life that makes them stand apart from the Hollywood machine. While the MCU films are a cut above most Hollywood efforts in this genre (Superman II--onwards, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Catwoman, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, X-Men: The Last Stand, Wolverine, etc. etc.) they are still a bit too confined by it, in my opinion.

[Guhndoi]

Originally Posted by Raiden

I would still put Iron Man 1 as #1, simply because it was such a fun movie, and RDJ was amazingly funny and cool as Tony Stark. Here's my ranking for Marvel Studio movies:

1. Iron Man 1
2. Thor
3. IM 2
4. TIH

That is how I feel about Iron Man as well. My 1 & 2 are the same except, TIH and IM 2 switched. Thor was very very close to topping Iron man IMO.

[Hoblin]

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

No I've heard others, probably not a majority opinion, but there are others. I'm also one who liked Batman Begins better than The Dark Knight, other than Heath's performance.

Agreed on Batman Begins. I liked The Dark Knight, but it had a few things I didn't really like. But Batman Begins had almost nothing that I disliked. So to me, Batman Begins is just a tiny bit better.

It's hard for me to rate Thor against the other Marvel Studios movies. It's just a little too new and hasn't had time to "simmer" yet. When I first saw Iron Man 2 I thought it was as good as the first. But a little time and repeat viewings made me change my mind. So I think Iron Man is probably the best. I WANT to say that TIH is my favorite, but I'm such a Hulk fan that I know my opinion is biased and probably shouldn't be counted.

So who knows exactly what I'll think of Thor after a few more viewings and a few more years? I've only seen it twice, but my initial thinking is that it's amazing and seems like its rewatchability (is that a word?) is off the charts.

[antonydelfini]

DACROWE is right. There are movies that try to just be fun superhero movies, it aint deep, it aint complex, it aint art, it doesnt try to win Oscars, it's just popcorn fun stuff created to thrill and entertain you. Thor and the Iron Man movies are like that. But I love it when these comic book films try to be something more, try to push the boundaries of the genre, try to tell something important. The Dark Knight is like that. That's why it is my favorite comic book movie ever. It tries to be something more. I have a feeling X-Men 1st Class could be like that too.