Comparing the movies Thor and Man of Steel

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by ciscostudent561

9/10 for MOS?!
listen, Just like you, I felt Caville's rendition of Superman was awesome. This movie to me, was the best Superman showing, in terms of character and ability. but the movie around him stunk. The romance forced and really out of place... I mean it was just not a really good movie around Superman.

Dude, agree to disagree.

Respect your opinion, but IMO MOS rocked. A story with a lot of heart, solid performances all around ( Jane Foster is pretty boring compared to Lois Lane, who actually shot some of the Kryptonians on their ship, aided by Jor EL GPS) awesome effects, and at last Superman gets to hit someone.

Personally, I thought Portman and Hemsthor had no chemistry whatsoever,
their big reunion had pretty much zero romance, and that's saying a lot as
Portman is a great actor, and Hemsworth is pretty decent.
For some reason, it's just not believable that they're in love, and it's almost as if they knew it too. Anyway, that's just IMO - I'm not a connoisseur of romance films, but I know I've seen more convincing relationships.

When Lois smiles at Clark at the end of MOS, and he smiles back, you walk away knowing things are going to work out okay.

But again, just IMO.

[Mjölnir]

We all will of course be colored by which of the two heroes are our favorites.

However, I personally think MoS underperformed due to the script. At several points it even fails to make sense to me. For example, the entire Krypton sequence (including Jor-El's tale in the space ship) tells us one thing about how wrong everything is but it shows us the opposite. The only thing that is both said and shown is that Krypton as a physical planet is doomed. Otherwise people could clearly excel in other areas than they were born and created to be, as the scientist Jor-El absolutely beats the crap out of Zod. There's also no reason shown why Jor-El and Lara couldn't have gone with their son because they showed that they could turn their backs on everything Krypton stood for (but they stated that they couldn't).

Cavill does a good job as Supes (I was skeptical going in but he proved himself in my eyes) but he's imo shortchanged by the script at times showing him off in a bad light. Like choosing not to save his father rather than failing to do so makes him less sympathetic to me, and it also is a worse bridge to the person he is at the beginning of the movie. Also how he is he one putting people in danger by actively taking the fight from the hicks into Smallville.

I think there's a lot of potential here but I'm disappointed in that Goyer gets the writing job for the sequel as well.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

We all will of course be colored by which of the two heroes are our favorites.

However, I personally think MoS underperformed due to the script. At several points it even fails to make sense to me. For example, the entire Krypton sequence (including Jor-El's tale in the space ship) tells us one thing about how wrong everything is but it shows us the opposite. The only thing that is both said and shown is that Krypton as a physical planet is doomed. Otherwise people could clearly excel in other areas than they were born and created to be, as the scientist Jor-El absolutely beats the crap out of Zod. There's also no reason shown why Jor-El and Lara couldn't have gone with their son because they showed that they could turn their backs on everything Krypton stood for (but they stated that they couldn't).

Cavill does a good job as Supes (I was skeptical going in but he proved himself in my eyes) but he's imo shortchanged by the script at times showing him off in a bad light. Like choosing not to save his father rather than failing to do so makes him less sympathetic to me, and it also is a worse bridge to the person he is at the beginning of the movie. Also how he is he one putting people in danger by actively taking the fight from the hicks into Smallville.

I think there's a lot of potential here but I'm disappointed in that Goyer gets the writing job for the sequel as well.

You are absolutely correct that our preference for one or the other of the two characters certainly colours our view.

With that in mind, allow me to respond to your critique. I am happy to admit, that MOS wasn't perfect, but then the original Superman movie has the lamest Superhero movie ending ever, but has 93% on rotten tomatoes and nearly everyone I talked to loved it (including me), but come on, flying around the world really fast so it spins backwards and that turns back time? Even if just Supes travelled back in time that wouldn't fix all the damage. In terms of plot devices or deus ex machine, that was just awful....but nobody cares.

Anyway, I appreciate your criticisms of the film, but in response:


Krypton: the reason Jor El could excel at more than just science (i.e. ass kicking) was that he was the smartest guy on Krypton, but also the idea of doing more than you were born to do, was his whole point -the whole point of the speech he gave Kal in the scoutship anyway.
Zod represented and was proof of the opposite. ONce he had no purpose he practically asked Superman to kill him.

As to Jor El not leaving. Practically, don't know if they had too many spaceships around, having abandoned space exploration as their resources ran out (remind you of any real life examples...hint, a country that used to have a space shuttle?) . Jor El had to make a tiny spaceship for his infant son, in his living room, so we can assume they weren't easy to come by

He couldn't leave earlier, as his pregnant wife was carrying his child. And everyone knows hyperspace travel isn't recommended for women in their last trimester.

In the original film Jor El promises to stay on Krypton, to avoid mass panic. Maybe he did the same here, as he knew that "everyone here is already dead." The reason he gives Kal is a philosophical one, that it was up to him to be the future of Krypton, not tied to its past.
All in all, I thought it worked.


Smallville fight: This one's been done to death, but I'll touch on it since you brought it up. The Kryptonians attacked Superman in downtown smallville, true he ended up there after he attacked Zod, but he probably wasn't thinking at that point, which was dumb, but understandable. He slammed into Zod, probably not thinking about the consequences, as he was busy punching Zod in the face.

Then the Kryptonians get dropped off in downtown Smallville, where the fight starts.
Anyway, given Faora's "we will kill a million more" statement, if he'd left, she'd have merrily started slaughtering the population. Once the fight started he tried to fly away a couple of times and got grabbed and slammed into the ground. I would also argue that the Army did most of the damage to Smallville when the jets strafed the main street, fired missiles and then crashed.
Either way, Superman can't take too much blame for that one.

Tornado Scene: Okay, here you have a point. I thought it was a very powerful idea, but not terribly well executed. If there had been a better reason why Clark couldn't rush out and save Pa Kent, maybe....although Pa Kent specifically told him not to. I'm not sure the people under the bridge would have really been paying too much attention as they were probably distracted by clinging for their lives to the overpass.
Anyway, with a little better scripting, that scene could have really been something. I found it good, but could have been better.

MOS isn't perfect, but then no movie is. ON that subject, with respect, I really enjoyed Thor TDW, but having only seen it once, can't pick too many holes in it....yet. This does not mean the holes aren't there (as there are a number of plot holes in Thor).

Here are a few that I've thought of so far.....

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

- if the aether can wipe out everything in the 9 realms, how come it doesn't just wipe out Thor ? Given that Kurse pummelled him, that doesn't seem right.

-why do the asgardian warriors bring swords....to a gun fight, when the dark elves attack ?

-where was the destroyer ? haven't they fixed it yet ?

- why couldn't Odin see through Loki's disguise ?

- why does the Collector's place look like an old pawn-shop and he come across like a drag-queen hairdresser, given that he's an immortal elder of the universe with the biggest collection of stuff in the universe ?

And why would Vostaag and Sif get sent to do give him an infinity gem, wasn't there anybody more qualified ?

And if Loki is in charge, masquerading as Odin, why would he do that ?
Why would he send away an object of immense power, given that Loki (in Thor, and the Avengers) was seeking ways to make himself more powerful, surprise surprise, using objects of great power.

- Why have Heimdall guard the Bifrost, which can be turned on and turned off, instead of all those back-door routes that Loki knows about. The rest of asgard, or at least Thor and probably Odin know about these after the first Thor movie, since Loki mentioned them then (which means Heimdall would know too, as Loki told him).

But hey, no movie is perfect, and none of these make the movie less enjoyable. I rated MOS 9/10 and Thor TDW 8/10, and since I'm a Super-fan
(and not a Thor fan, although after this film I might be) that's saying a lot.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

However, I personally think MoS underperformed due to the script. At several points it even fails to make sense to me. For example, the entire Krypton sequence (including Jor-El's tale in the space ship) tells us one thing about how wrong everything is but it shows us the opposite. The only thing that is both said and shown is that Krypton as a physical planet is doomed. Otherwise people could clearly excel in other areas than they were born and created to be, as the scientist Jor-El absolutely beats the crap out of Zod. There's also no reason shown why Jor-El and Lara couldn't have gone with their son because they showed that they could turn their backs on everything Krypton stood for (but they stated that they couldn't).

Actually the opening of the film sets up why Krypton are doomed to fail quite well imo. First, Jor-El was clearly trained in combat, and thus partial breed for it as well. His possession of battle armor shows this, so lets just put that to side.

The reason Jor-El and Lara don't go with Kal-El is because they know they are part of the problem on a intellectually level. Because of how they were breed, heck programmed, they consider it from the point of view of a scientist. They realize that they are inherently flaw on a genetic level.

They never turn their back on Krypton, they go about saving Krypton in their own way, in the way they were breed. This is no different from the council or Zod. Each group is using the logic they were breed to have to try and save their planet. The scientist, through science. The warrior, through combat. The politician, through a strong political base. This is why none of them can see the others point of view. They all want to save Krypton, but none of them can do it any other way then how they were breed. Thus, the doom of Krypton is inherent within the Kryptonians themselves.

That is why one of the major themes of the film, perhaps the theme, is choice. Jor-El, Lara, Zod, Faora, and all the other Kryptonians breed from the codex don't truly have it. They can only think from within their little genetic box.

Clark on the otherhand does have free will. He was able to learn values from the Kents, to mess up. He can choose. Like how he chooses to protect Earth.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Cavill does a good job as Supes (I was skeptical going in but he proved himself in my eyes) but he's imo shortchanged by the script at times showing him off in a bad light. Like choosing not to save his father rather than failing to do so makes him less sympathetic to me, and it also is a worse bridge to the person he is at the beginning of the movie. Also how he is he one putting people in danger by actively taking the fight from the hicks into Smallville.

Clark didn't actively take the fight to Smallville. It is pretty apparent that he snaps at Zod attacking his mother and unleashes upon him. He was not thinking "well we might crash through some silos and end up in the middle of town", he is thinking "get your hands off my mother".

Now I want you to imagine someone threatens your mother and puts their hands on her. I personally would probably lose it, and attempt to hurt the other person quite badly. The same happens with Clark, except him and Zod are super beings. It happens on a grander scale.

For the most part, I never understand this criticism of Clark in this film. He has been incapable of reacting physically to anything his entire life, and on an emotional level, he is all kinds of messed up. Thinking himself a freak, finding out he is alien, and not know how or why he is on Earth.

That he isn't the "perfect" version of Superman yet makes perfect sense. Just how Bruce isn't the perfect Batman yet in Begins.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I think there's a lot of potential here but I'm disappointed in that Goyer gets the writing job for the sequel as well.

Goyer is a good ideas guy, bad at the execution. It basically falls to the director to make it all work. I think for the most part Snyder did that in MoS. Not to a Nolan level, but pretty close.

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

With that in mind, allow me to respond to your critique. I am happy to admit, that MOS wasn't perfect, but then the original Superman movie has the lamest Superhero movie ending ever, but has 93% on rotten tomatoes and nearly everyone I talked to loved it (including me), but come on, flying around the world really fast so it spins backwards and that turns back time? Even if just Supes travelled back in time that wouldn't fix all the damage. In terms of plot devices or deus ex machine, that was just awful....but nobody cares.

None of the CBM's are perfect. I can find clear flaws with every single one, but those flaws bother me to very different extents. The ending to the big fight in The Avengers isn't great, where the Chitauri fall through being disconnected to the hive mind, but for some reason that never bothered me that much. I like Nolan's trilogy a lot but I think the more realistic tone clashes with several unrealistic things at many points. I'm having a bit more trouble seeing past that on repeated viewings, but I still like them. Just a couple of examples of very commonly liked movies and no one is better than the other just because I happen to have it easier with one of the flaws (then again "better" is always individual).

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Krypton: the reason Jor El could excel at more than just science (i.e. ass kicking) was that he was the smartest guy on Krypton, but also the idea of doing more than you were born to do, was his whole point -the whole point of the speech he gave Kal in the scoutship anyway.
Zod represented and was proof of the opposite. ONce he had no purpose he practically asked Superman to kill him.

To excel in combat you need more than just smarts. You need a very capable physical body.

My point is mainly that I think the message of the doomed society (not the actual planet) would have been so much more powerful if they showed how potent and restrictive their genetic manipulation was (actually being able to alter genes is an enormously big thing). They had manipulated people for at least centuries so I would expect their soldiers to at least be Captain America physically, while scientists would only get what they need for their job. It would give a better view of a terrible society in my opinion.

As it was we were shown that the genetic manipulation didn't seem to do much. Jor-El was the better fighter than Zod so their manipulation just didn't seem to be that extreme to me.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

As to Jor El not leaving. Practically, don't know if they had too many spaceships around, having abandoned space exploration as their resources ran out (remind you of any real life examples...hint, a country that used to have a space shuttle?) . Jor El had to make a tiny spaceship for his infant son, in his living room, so we can assume they weren't easy to come by

He couldn't leave earlier, as his pregnant wife was carrying his child. And everyone knows hyperspace travel isn't recommended for women in their last trimester.

He says that he and Lara couldn't leave because they were products of Krypton, not because it wasn't physically possible. Since they actively go against pretty much everything Krypton stood for I don't see how they are products of it, let alone unable to change when they came to a new planet.

It would have been better to explain it like you did imo, that it wasn't possible to escape with a ship large enough to take all three of them.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Smallville fight: This one's been done to death, but I'll touch on it since you brought it up. The Kryptonians attacked Superman in downtown smallville, true he ended up there after he attacked Zod, but he probably wasn't thinking at that point, which was dumb, but understandable. He slammed into Zod, probably not thinking about the consequences, as he was busy punching Zod in the face.

I just mentioned it as an example where they have Superman do bad things. For me he is an extremely selfless hero so I would rather have preferred him to do what he could to get the fight away from Smallville (and Metropolis) but fail to do so and let the opponent(s) get the upper hand because he focuses more on saving others than himself.

[QUOTE=Batmannerism;27185239Tornado Scene: Okay, here you have a point. I thought it was a very powerful idea, but not terribly well executed. If there had been a better reason why Clark couldn't rush out and save Pa Kent, maybe....although Pa Kent specifically told him not to. I'm not sure the people under the bridge would have really been paying too much attention as they were probably distracted by clinging for their lives to the overpass.
Anyway, with a little better scripting, that scene could have really been something. I found it good, but could have been better. [/QUOTE]
That scene makes me sad because the actors were good enough to make it great, but everything else was done wrong imo (down to Jonathan being able to stand calmly in a wind that seconds earlier lifted a car off the car he was in).

I would have liked to see a scene where both Martha and Jonathan are in life-threatening danger. Clark tries to save both but has to choose which one to save first, causing him to be too late to save the other. That would make him heroic and sympathetic, and I also think it would have played perfectly into the part of his life where he's just wandering around trying to get away from people as much as possible. He wouldn't think he was good enough to be a hero because he couldn't save his father. But that's just my view.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

- if the aether can wipe out everything in the 9 realms, how come it doesn't just wipe out Thor ? Given that Kurse pummelled him, that doesn't seem right.

-why do the asgardian warriors bring swords....to a gun fight, when the dark elves attack ?

-where was the destroyer ? haven't they fixed it yet ?

- why couldn't Odin see through Loki's disguise ?

- why does the Collector's place look like an old pawn-shop and he come across like a drag-queen hairdresser, given that he's an immortal elder of the universe with the biggest collection of stuff in the universe ?

And why would Vostaag and Sif get sent to do give him an infinity gem, wasn't there anybody more qualified ?

And if Loki is in charge, masquerading as Odin, why would he do that ?
Why would he send away an object of immense power, given that Loki (in Thor, and the Avengers) was seeking ways to make himself more powerful, surprise surprise, using objects of great power.

- Why have Heimdall guard the Bifrost, which can be turned on and turned off, instead of all those back-door routes that Loki knows about. The rest of asgard, or at least Thor and probably Odin know about these after the first Thor movie, since Loki mentioned them then (which means Heimdall would know too, as Loki told him).

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

Fun things to discuss.

The Aether can't just destroy the universe, it needs the convergence of the nine realms to destroy it. It's powers seems to be more geared towards other things than combat power, something that's reinforced by Thor's taunt at the beginning of the fight.

I'm guessing that's a cultural thing and that the "gods" (Odin saying that they are not gods is a part I don't like about the movie) are stuck in their ways. They are probably strong enough to handle whatever everyone currently in the nine realms can shoot at them. It's not terribly logical though, it's a thing that comes from the fantasy trope that's a big part of the movie.

Since he's not there I'd say that the logical conclusion to draw is that Thor broke it for good. Another possibility is that they only use it to protect the vault, as there are some extremely powerful artifacts hidden there.

Even Heimdall can't see through Loki's magic so it never struck me as odd that Odin couldn't. I'd sooner expect Odin to deduct that there's a possibility of a scheme, but he's in a weird state after Frigga dies.

I don't know about the Collector. I'm not that read up on that character and they might change things from the comics (this is a different director than for TDW, so I treat it almost as part of the GotG movie). The Asgardians aren't gods, so maybe he isn't what he is in the comics either?

Volstagg and Sif are pretty high up on the scale. Sif was given command of an army so she's clearly just a notch below Thor.

It's an interesting question why Loki didn't keep the stone. A possibility is that the scene isn't in the correct chronological place, so Odin might have sent it away before Loki assumed his place. I guess it's also possible that Loki does it to cement his ruse. He already has what he wants so he doesn't need more. Or he makes a deal with the Collector to get out of punishment for failing in the Avengers, although that seems pretty unlikely as the Tesseract is still in Asgard. In any case it's something they will have to explain.

No one knows about the secret paths but Loki (unless someone else knows but isn't telling anyone), according to what's being said in the movie. That's why Thor needs to bring Loki on the ride. If anyone else knew he would have left Loki in the cell.

It's just fun to discuss things like this in a friendly manner. As we've both said, all movies have flaws and it can be fun to discuss them as long as it's done in good spirit.

And DarthSkywalker, I read your post but I feel that most of what I could respond with is in this post and it seems unnecessary to just parrot myself.

[DarthSkywalker]

What Batmannerism and I posted are very different in content. I don't know how it would be parroting unless you were gonna ignore what a lot of what I wrote...

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

He says that he and Lara couldn't leave because they were products of Krypton, not because it wasn't physically possible. Since they actively go against pretty much everything Krypton stood for I don't see how they are products of it, let alone unable to change when they came to a new planet.

It would have been better to explain it like you did imo, that it wasn't possible to escape with a ship large enough to take all three of them.

Did you really read what I wrote? They clearly don't go against what Krypton stood for. They did what their society breed them to do. They did exactly what Zod and the council were doing.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I just mentioned it as an example where they have Superman do bad things. For me he is an extremely selfless hero so I would rather have preferred him to do what he could to get the fight away from Smallville (and Metropolis) but fail to do so and let the opponent(s) get the upper hand because he focuses more on saving others than himself.

You are applying prime Silver Age Superman to MoS Superman, which makes little sense in context imo. This is a rookie Superman who is forced into a situation where he must face arguably his most fearsome opponent other then Darkseid or Doomsday. Forced into a situation where he must choice to end his race or save Earth.

[Batmannerism]

Dude, nicely put ! Had to defend the Smallville fight so many times its crazy,
so big ups to you, put it better than I did.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Clark didn't actively take the fight to Smallville. It is pretty apparent that he snaps at Zod attacking his mother and unleashes upon him. He was not thinking "well we might crash through some silos and end up in the middle of town", he is thinking "get your hands off my mother".

Now I want you to imagine someone threatens your mother and puts their hands on her. I personally would probably lose it, and attempt to hurt the other person quite badly. The same happens with Clark, except him and Zod are super beings. It happens on a grander scale.

For the most part, I never understand this criticism of Clark in this film. He has been incapable of reacting physically to anything his entire life, and on an emotional level, he is all kinds of messed up. Thinking himself a freak, finding out he is alien, and not know how or why he is on Earth.

That he isn't the "perfect" version of Superman yet makes perfect sense. Just how Bruce isn't the perfect Batman yet in Begins.

Goyer is a good ideas guy, bad at the execution. It basically falls to the director to make it all work. I think for the most part Snyder did that in MoS. Not to a Nolan level, but pretty close.

Agree completely. It was a very human reaction, just by someone with Godlike power. I also think he didn't smash Faora into the Ihop on purpose, he just wanted to stop her from taking out the jet.

Also, the fight was just so fast and furious, I don't think Clark ever had a chance to get them away from the town -even harder when the bad guys split up, and Clark had to fight the giant while Faora slaughtered the poor Army dudes. (BTW all you MOS haters, in the middle of all that chaos
he took time to save the falling pilot, even though it gave the giant a free shot at him).


Jor-El's fighting skills......I agree as Mjolnir said, it takes more than brains to fight. Jor-El was pretty athletic, but also he was desperate, not only was his son's future at stake, but the future of his people. Plus, he'd been planning for it, (which why his robot buddy knew when to flash Zod's goons).

As to the effect of Krypton's eugenics programme, also raised by Mjolnir.
I re-iterate, what stronger proof do you need, than Zod ?
His statement in the final smackdown, where he pretty much states that without a purpose he doesn't want to live anymore. That's some pretty strong conditioning.

While Lara and Jor El were clearly able to go against the "Kryptonian Way"
that's not too hard to explain - Jor El is the greatest intellect on Krypton,
don't you think he might be able to see other ways of doing things.
- what separates genius from the rest of us is the ability to see things we can't. So, I just can't see why it's so much of a problem (that is either the fighting skills or sending his son away).

To me, it seems like a minor point or flaw.

Regardless, for whatever reason Jor-El and Lara didn't leave Krypton, it's a key part of the Superman mythos, and it just has to play out that way. I'm not sure you can pick that one apart, it's a bit like saying why didn't the Waynes just go out the main exit of the theatre ?

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Did you really read what I wrote? They clearly don't go against what Krypton stood for. They did what their society breed them to do. They did exactly what Zod and the council were doing.

Yes, I read it and I didn't think it changed anything.

Jor-El training to fight in his spare time and still kicking the living crap out of Zod, who is genetically designed to be part of the military, indicates that the genetic manipulation wasn't very effective.

And how is Jor-El part of the problem on an intellectual level? He's identified the problems and he obviously has free will because he decides to act against the laws and culture of his planet. With all the right things Jor-El does it seems like his flaws must be really minor, which means that he should be able to live somewhere else without dooming the place. My point is that it's not enough to tell us how something is if they only ever show the other side.

As for having flaws on a genetic level, their genes are passed on to Kal-El so the natural birth wouldn't make him any different from them. They can't pass on genes they don't have, unless they also manipulate the genes of their son.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

You are applying prime Silver Age Superman to MoS Superman, which makes little sense in context imo. This is a rookie Superman who is forced into a situation where he must face arguably his most fearsome opponent other then Darkseid or Doomsday. Forced into a situation where he must choice to end his race or save Earth.

That comment is also taken out of context. I said that the movie continuously chooses to go with something that makes Clark/Superman more negative than he needs to in my opinion. For him to choose not to save his father isn't sympathetic to me, regardless of the reason. Especially with the timing of the scene as he seemingly had time to act earlier. The Smallville part is just one of several points where they have him have a less than heroic aspect to his actions. I get why it happens but my point is the intent of the writers. Even when making him do that they could have had him reflect on that he put others in danger and he could have put that thought to use in the Metropolis fight. It doesn't matter if he succeeds, the intent is the important part there.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Jor-El's fighting skills......I agree as Mjolnir said, it takes more than brains to fight. Jor-El was pretty athletic, but also he was desperate, not only was his son's future at stake, but the future of his people. Plus, he'd been planning for it, (which why his robot buddy knew when to flash Zod's goons).

I just figured with the extremely advanced genetic manipulation (which they've been using for much longer than any industry has been used on our world) that the soldiers would be extremely suited to their tasks. Like a bunch of Captain Americas. Zod doesn't just lose, he gets dominated. I don't mind the fight itself, my entire point is about show vs tell in the Krypton scene.

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Regardless, for whatever reason Jor-El and Lara didn't leave Krypton, it's a key part of the Superman mythos, and it just has to play out that way. I'm not sure you can pick that one apart, it's a bit like saying why didn't the Waynes just go out the main exit of the theatre ?

Of course they need to stay there, but I think you can write better reasons as for why they do. There are several ways to write that so there are no question marks about it, instead of having them choose not to go for a reason that's being undermined by the rest of the script. For example, making it impossible for them to go with their son for practical reasons.

The Waynes going out the back exit isn't exactly them knowingly making a huge, life-altering decision.

As for your comment about a flaw being minor, how does that change whether you can discuss it or not? For example, your comment about Asgard sending Volstagg and Sif isn't a big point at all, but I still found it interesting to think about. I thought this was just a friendly discussion, not all serious business.

[jonathancrane]

I found Thor: The Dark World to be a much superior film, tho it did have some faults. Like MOS, one of my minor criticisms can be extended to humor. While I love the character of Darcy, I felt the forced romance with intern and some of the one-liners that did not work, undercut some of the dramatic tension in the final showdown in Greenwich.

Conversely, Man of Steel could have benefitted by having a sense of humor (I am excluding the horrible one liner at the end, because I've posted pages worth of criticism about how it ruined the ending.) What is present is a dark, humorless film. The gray color correction really reinforces how damn bleak the film is. For a film that marketed itself around the idea of hope, there was ironically none to be found. The film is a black hole that takes away all of one's joy.

In terms of the casting, I felt both films evened out. Outside of the hero lead, the standout casting decision in MOS was Amy Adams, which was a terrific decision. At times in Thor: TDW, Portman's performance felt a little distant. Having watched Thor with friends the day before seeing the film, I noticed the character of Jane Foster did not have the same energy she had in Thor. I do not know if it was from the behind the scenes drama (or my projecting my knowledge of onto the film,) or the way the character was written or edited. It was bad, by any means, but did not have a consistent vitality. In this front, I would hand the victory to Adams who was a source of a light in a depressing film.

In terms of design, both films are tied. I enjoyed the H.R. Giger influence on Malekiths' tech, and the unique style of the Kryptonian equipment (esp. the Command Key.) The only item I did not like from MOS was the octopus sentry that was deployed around the one generator; it felt somewhat out of place. Now, it was not detrimental to the film's design, but was an interesting screenwriting choice. Both films are tied on this front.

In terms of fight choreography, both films mirror a lot of imagery from anime. Thor's fighting was informed by Dragonball Z and the evolution into Kurse synthesizes both the Saiyan transformation and Elemental Stone transformation in Pokemon (as a life long fan of the style, I was tickled.) The handling of the Kryptonian armors in the film again made me recall DBZ. Calling the victory on this front is somewhat difficult: the choreography is terrific in both fronts. My only complaint lies with the fighting in populated spaces: both films do have final acts set in cities (to my dismay.) Fortunately, The Dark World limited the destruction to a campus and the damage to mostly shattered windows and holes in walls. There could have been a building that collapsed, but, I do not recall one. MOS, on the other hand, went overboard with it, unfortunately. Part of me wishes they had contained the fight to Smallville, as I loved the evocation of the Western tradition: Supes vs. Zod on his men on Main Street. If they had restricted the destruction in MOS, it would been tied with TDW.

[This is the first half of my breakdown of the films. Writing these took longer than I anticipated, and I have to go grab some breakfast.]

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Yes, I read it and I didn't think it changed anything.

Jor-El training to fight in his spare time and still kicking the living crap out of Zod, who is genetically designed to be part of the military, indicates that the genetic manipulation wasn't very effective.

Why do you think Jor-El didn't have combat as a part of his genetic manipulation? It would make sense for all Kryptonians to have these basic functions. After all, Jor-El had battle armor. Zod is a warrior. What separates him from Jor-El isn't his ability to throw a punch, but his state of mind and how he thinks. He thinks in a very militaristic way.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

And how is Jor-El part of the problem on an intellectual level? He's identified the problems and he obviously has free will because he decides to act against the laws and culture of his planet. With all the right things Jor-El does it seems like his flaws must be really minor, which means that he should be able to live somewhere else without dooming the place. My point is that it's not enough to tell us how something is if they only ever show the other side.

What you are missing, is he isn't doing that. He is very much working within his culture's framework, just like Zod and the Council. He was breed to think the way he does, and it is why he comes to the conclusion that he does. It is a clean cut. The end of the corrupted Krypton.

It is pretty simple really.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

As for having flaws on a genetic level, their genes are passed on to Kal-El so the natural birth wouldn't make him any different from them. They can't pass on genes they don't have, unless they also manipulate the genes of their son.

I am not sure what this is reference to. The problem is how they think, what they represent, not their genetic material.

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

That comment is also taken out of context. I said that the movie continuously chooses to go with something that makes Clark/Superman more negative than he needs to in my opinion. For him to choose not to save his father isn't sympathetic to me, regardless of the reason. Especially with the timing of the scene as he seemingly had time to act earlier. The Smallville part is just one of several points where they have him have a less than heroic aspect to his actions. I get why it happens but my point is the intent of the writers. Even when making him do that they could have had him reflect on that he put others in danger and he could have put that thought to use in the Metropolis fight. It doesn't matter if he succeeds, the intent is the important part there.

I don't see how these things are "negative". It isn't like Clark decides to not save his father. He is going to do it, and his father makes him pause. By the time Clark comprehends what he is being told, it is too late. There is no decision to be made. Pa Kent can't be saved.

Clark clearly reflects the danger he puts others in. He goes and sees a priest about it. He pauses before making the decision to destroy the scout ship.He goes out of his way to save two soldiers in the middle of battle with two Kryptonians. He breaks Zod's neck because of it.

It is very present.

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Why do you think Jor-El didn't have combat as a part of his genetic manipulation? It would make sense for all Kryptonians to have these basic functions. After all, Jor-El had battle armor. Zod is a warrior. What separates him from Jor-El isn't his ability to throw a punch, but his state of mind and how he thinks. He thinks in a very militaristic way.

I think it's a weak way to portray the Kryptonian society which is said to be so extreme. Jor-El talks about how no one could ever aspire to be something else than what they were born to be, so why would they have scientists bred to be good fighters? When they talk about Krypton in the movie it sounds like an awesomely terrible society, but I think it gets watered down and even contradicted by what we get to see.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

What you are missing, is he isn't doing that. He is very much working within his culture's framework, just like Zod and the Council. He was breed to think the way he does, and it is why he comes to the conclusion that he does. It is a clean cut. The end of the corrupted Krypton.

It is pretty simple really.

What does Jor-El do that a human wouldn't do then? If it's pretty simple you should be able to point exactly to where he differs.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I am not sure what this is reference to. The problem is how they think, what they represent, not their genetic material.

You said "they realize that they are inherently flaw on a genetic level". That seems pretty contradictory to what you're saying now.

It would also be very weak to talk about how krypton genetically modifies people to fit into what society demands of the individual and then not have it be a big factor. Why would you bother with genetic manipulation if you don't make people perfect for their tasks?

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I don't see how these things are "negative". It isn't like Clark decides to not save his father. He is going to do it, and his father makes him pause. By the time Clark comprehends what he is being told, it is too late. There is no decision to be made. Pa Kent can't be saved.

Clark clearly reflects the danger he puts others in. He goes and sees a priest about it. He pauses before making the decision to destroy the scout ship.He goes out of his way to save two soldiers in the middle of battle with two Kryptonians. He breaks Zod's neck because of it.

It is very present.

First of all I think it is a disservice to the character to have him make the choice not to save his father. Other than that he does have a choice to do it before he's told not to. He could have ran and checked on him when the other car came crashing down on the Kent car. That seemed pretty serious and there was no Jonathan to tell him not to in that moment, as well as the storm wasn't upon them quite yet. Martha is about to run there and check but Clark stops her and doesn't do anything but watch.

The part where he saves the soldiers is exactly what I want to see from Superman, and unfortunately it's just not present in the final confrontation with Zod, when I felt that was the conflict that would birth the real Superman. They just kept attacking with little care and even Superman used the city as a weapon. I think his extreme compassion is a very important "flaw" to balance his extreme power level. Perhaps I would have thought it worked better if the terraforming hadn't already wrecked huge parts of the city.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

As for your comment about a flaw being minor, how does that change whether you can discuss it or not? For example, your comment about Asgard sending Volstagg and Sif isn't a big point at all, but I still found it interesting to think about. I thought this was just a friendly discussion, not all serious business.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to sound too serious. It's strange, we all have such strong opinions about these characters and their mythologies that
quite often its easy to sound very heated.




Everything should be up for discussion,and as to Jor El remaining behind
maybe they could have written better reasons for it, but again it is such an essential part of the Superman mythos that he's a man of two worlds, with parents who raised him (which was a struggle) and parents he never really knew, who he's struggled to come to terms with.

I still don't think it's a point that is really open to much scrutiny - and I'm quite fond of my analogy with the Waynes not going out the back door, while that may not seem as big a decision as Jor El's, it certainly had
irreversible and profound consequences for Bruce and everyone who's been influenced or affected by him.

But it's absolutely fair to discuss it, why not ?




Like I said about the original Superman film, the reason Jor El stays is because he doesn't want to create a panic -which is pretty fair. This is dealt with in a couple of lines of dialogue.
Maybe they could have done the same for MOS.....although maybe they were hinting at it when the council leader says "Are you suggesting we evacuate the entire planet." and Jor El replies "Everybody here is already dead." not as explicit as Superman the movie, but suggestive that is not practical for him to leave.




I know I'm repeating myself, but we could find many practical reasons why
Jor El and Lara don't leave Krypton
- unavailability of space ships, which makes sense, given that Black Zero, Zod's ship, didn't have a hyper-drive, until they converted the phantom zone projector into one, and that the Kryptonians had abandoned space travel, possibly 1000's of years before, and had no natural resources left.

- and of course Lara's pregnancy ( I was sort of kidding about it being common knowledge that pregnant women shouldn't travel thru hyperspace....), but he wouldn't have wanted to risk (or expose) Lara's pregnancy, given that no one had been born that way for centuries.


- the general time frame, that Jor El discovers Krypton is doomed (or at
least reports it to the council) within a day or so of his son's birth, then is murdered by Zod that same day, seconds after Lara launches the escape ship. I can't see Lara leaving without him (not because she doesn't want to be with her son, but she was probably too attached to memories of the only home she'd ever known).

But you are correct, that a line or two of dialogue could have cleared that
up really easily.


Having said that though, I think Jor El's philosophical reason, while hard to
understand, makes sense. He wanted Krypton to have a fresh start, free from the "brave new world" approach to determining people's futures.
Clearly he still wanted Krypton to survive (which was his whole point with the codex, and I'm guessing he would have known about the scoutship on Earth - he did have the technology, in his living room to have a look at Earth's population and atmosphere, so finding the ship would have been easy).

As he said later on (well the AI Jor El said) he wanted Kal to be a bridge between two worlds, and when he was ready, reestablish Krypton, in coexistance with Earth. If you want to have a go at minor points, there's some moral flaws in that argument you might pick up.

I'm not saying that in a condescending or sarcastic way, because it's true. Really, what Jor El wanted was for Kal to re-start Kryptonian civilization on Earth -which has some pretty big implications ( I live in a country where "colonization" is a dirty word ).



So, I agree, you can critique the explanation for Jor El remaining on Krypton (again, practically with the time frame, he never could have left, but then again he never planned to in the first place).
However, it's just part of the Superman mythos that we have to accept.


Also...

I'm struggling a bit to see your point about how Kryptonian society is described contradicted by what we see. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I think the whole point of Jor El, as a character, is that because of his intellect, he's an original thinker (remember, the greatest scientist on Krypton, what Einstein or Newton would be to us) of course
he's going to be able to see other ways of doing things, and particularly other solutions to problems.
For a super-technologically advanced race the council don't seem too clever, which is Jor El's point about Krypton having lost something - I think what he's getting at is without the freedom of choice of one's destiny, there can be no original thought.

Maybe through their genetic manipulation, with people being so channelled into one particular role, they've actually gone backwards. Maybe the film's point is that the superior man is one who can think for himself (wow, Jor El just became a nietschzean "super man").


In contrast to Jor El, the original thinker, we have Zod (I know I've said this before) who cannot live without his pre-determined purpose, and the Council, who are suicidally incompetent (maybe it's because they couldn't think like scientists, only politicians, they couldn't understand that harvesting Krypton's core would destroy the planet, boy good thing that sort of stuff doesn't happen in real life....oh crap, it does).

Zod, his goons (maybe the reason they can't fight as well as Jor El is that they're bred to be grunts and nothing more) and the council represent the rule (as far as Kryptonian society goes) and Jor El is the exception.
And Lara too, got to give her credit, as while it was Jor El's idea, she had to carry Kal El to term, ouch !



Now you've brought it up, and I'm not sure if DC has ever done it, but what an amazing storyline could emerge from If Jor El, Kal El and Lara had all come to Earth. What would the consequences be like ? How different would Kal El be if he'd been raised by Kryptonian parents on EArth, instead of Krypton. (I know they've done elseworlds stories about what if Krypton never exploded). Hmmmmmmm...anyone got Geoff Johns' phone number ?



okay, moving right along.


So while I disagree with your criticism re the explanation for Jor El staying on Krypton and the contradictory depiction of Krypton, I think your criticism re Jor-El's fighting skills, has some merit.

A little explanation might have helped, as I was surprised not just at how he could best Zod (although the desperation would really help -although it wasn't really sheer desperation and strength, which is what I would have expected, it was a pretty skillful beat-down). What really surprised me was how he could take on 4 soldiers and win (with an intial surprise advantage, and temporary blindness being a huge advantage) but his skills were impressive
(maybe a bit too impressive). I suppose it fits with the Robert Downey jr version of Sherlock Holmes being a superb fighter due to both skill and
intellect....anyway it goes against the traditional representation of Jor -El.
You would think that Kryptonian soldiers, created for warfare, would be just about impossible to beat (like Captain America), Faora certainly was more what I'd expect (particularly in how she manhandles the arguably much stronger Superman), but obviously they hadn't been taking the same amount of effort in sorting out their male soldiers...who knows maybe on Krypton the best warriors were women (Faora v Wonder Woman, now that would be a good one !).


Personally, I really liked it, it was a fun surprise, but I'll admit it seemed almost (and I mean almost) seemed out of place (I mean, who didn't want to see Zod get his ass kicked, after he shot that old lady, what a bastard, he had it coming).



While we're talking about explanations.


(on that note, I enjoyed TRON legacy, but one thing that drove me nuts was how CLU was going to invade the real world with an army, but the portal comes out in a basement work-room that would only fit 4 or 5 people tops. That made NO sense. A line or two of dialogue and they could have explained that, because as it was, it left a giant hole in the plot).

Like Darth, I disagree on Superman's displays of compassion, but really in the fight with Zod, did he have time to worry about that ?

I remember in Superman II when Zod, Ursa and Non, turn their super breath on the bystanders and Superman yells "The PEOPLE !" before
flying off. While that worked in 1980, I'm not sure it fits with today's sensibilities. Also the fight with Zod was pretty frantic, and part of it had to be Supes standing up to a bully, at last (so I suspect in some small way he actually enjoyed fighting Zod). Maybe it was just to showcase that if Superman ever did fight in downtown, the damage would be catastropic (in keeping with a more 'realistic' version of Superman).
Yes, there would have been a substantial body count, and huge property damage (although not as great as that casued by the Kryptonians' gravity weapon), but Zod needed stopping, there and then, or the human race was finished - it's not the best argument, but you can argue for a "big picture" approach, needs of the many etc.

Honestly, it's a very personal thing. You didn't like it, but it worked for me. Probably don't need to discuss it much further, just have to agree to disagree on that one.





Okay so moving on to Thor TDW.

Like I said, I really enjoyed it, nearly as much as MOS, which is saying a lot for me, as I'm not really a Thor fan. True, MOS was a much darker film, and the humour was only incidental, but that's a Nolan thing, you don't see many laughs in TDK, and it's one of the best superhero films of all time. Mabye it's just a Marvel - DC thing, with DC being better at darker films, and Marvel being lighter (although Tony Stark's routine got old after a while, he's still the same arrogant prick for 3 movies, until the very very end of Iron man 3...come on).

Sorry, getting distracted. Really enjoyed TDW, won't try to poke holes in it until I see it again (although I can tell you now, the romance plot will be one thing I complain about). For now I'm happy with it. Nice job Marvel.



Back to Sif and Volstag, I suppose sending Sif might make sense, as she seems to be pretty high up in the warrior hierarchy, but Volstag is kind of comic relief (although Ray Stevenson is perfect for the character, and does a great job of not going too far -reminds me of a less violent version of his character in Rome).

Would you really send him though, for such an important mission ? Again, my main question would be, why do it at all ? Maybe it was Odin sending them, before Loki replaced him, or maybe Loki actually did it (but that doesn't seem to fit with Loki's general character) ?


Personally, I'm much more of DC fan than Marvel, although they have produced some very enjoyable films. TDW was a really fun one, but that scene just didn't work for me. It was like the writers trying too hard to knit together storylines that don't really fit together.


Do you think the whole "infinity gem" storyline would work on the big screen. I suppose the Thanos cameo at the end of Avengers was a hint,
but would it pan out on the big screen ?



Anyway, like I said at the beginning, I tend to get into these discussions, but don't think I'm being unfriendly, and I give you a lot of credit for the tone of your comments -whether I agree with them or not. So sorry, if I sound like I'm taking it a bit seriously. I respect your point of view.

Ultimately, we may have to agree to disagree, but that's okay too.

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Oh sorry, I didn't mean to sound too serious. It's strange, we all have such strong opinions about these characters and their mythologies that
quite often its easy to sound very heated.

I just misunderstood you then. I haven't gotten a heated vibe from you, I just thought one line indicated that you took my post too seriously. That wasn't the case so let's just move on from that.

When it comes to the possible practical reasons why Jor-El and Lara couldn't have followed I prefer that explanation. Now Jor-El said that they couldn't come because they were products of Krypton, which I just feel rhymes ill with how open-minded he is. As you say he also envisions his son as a leader for the people of Earth so he still expects our planet to change.

As for the manipulation, it just comes down to that I think it's a cool concept if they had really taken it to the limit, which I think is appropriate for something that goes on for centuries.

As for Supermans compassion it's in part just my view of him and also it's not about any specific thing but really the small things over the course of the movie. I'm not really a fan of Goyer as a writer but I do think that Cavill did a good job with what was there so there was definitely good things about the character.


As for DC and Marvel I'm the opposite, I've enjoyed the Marvel stuff more. When it comes to the movies I guess I'm just the way that when things get more gritty (or whatever word people want to use for it) I just automatically expect things to follow normal logic to a higher extent. I really enjoyed Nolan's trilogy but they don't grow with me on repeated viewings like some of the MCU movies have done. Just a matter of taste.


On the subject of Volstagg I think he's been really competent in the movies. In the comics he's not a good fighter anymore since he's gotten too fat but he's not doing worse than any of the others in the MCU. They are pretty much the best Asgard has under Thor, Odin and Heimdall.

With the mid/end-credits scenes I don't personally have much problems if they stand out, which it did in TDW. I treat them as separate things, but for those that don't I can get that they seem off at times.

Related to the topic of who sent them I am a bit worried about that they will have to do something off-screen with Odin as Hopkins doesn't seem like the guy that will want to stay with a role for too long. At least not anything less than Hannibal Lecter.

As for the Infinity story I'm sure it could work, but it will be done in a different way for sure. I don't really want to hazard a guess on how they will pull it off so far in advance but I'm interested in seeing it. They clearly have a grand plan when they tease Thanos so early.


I think you are right in that we just disagree. This is just a matter of opinion. Even if something is executed incorrectly in any movie it's still down to if it's a flaw that matters to you or not, and all movies have flaws. If I watch MoS again I'm probably going to try to do it with the one of my friends who is a Superman fan. That might help me get in a different mindset.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I think you are right in that we just disagree. This is just a matter of opinion. Even if something is executed incorrectly in any movie it's still down to if it's a flaw that matters to you or not, and all movies have flaws. If I watch MoS again I'm probably going to try to do it with the one of my friends who is a Superman fan. That might help me get in a different mindset.

Cool. Now we've put a lot of words into MOS, time to move on to Thor, this is Thor world thread after all.

Personally, I loved TDW, and am really surprised by Thor fans who didn't. I thought it had all the ingredients of the first film, a pretty menacing villain, and an even stronger performance by Loki (he stole every scene, Hiddleston has just redefined the character, I'd be surprised if we didn't see the Comic Loki emulate his performance).

Like I said, I found the romance a bit unconvincing, but since it was a super-hero movie, that isn't the main thrust. The visuals were staggering, I'll admit they were the equal of MOS, and that's saying a lot for me ( I gave TDW an 8/10 and MOS 9/10, and that's considering I'm not a Thor fan).

The music.....kind of forgettable, Kurse....a bit one-dimensional (but that's his job, to be a mindless engine of destruction), but other than that I thought Marvel really did themselves proud (the mid-credits scene doesn't count).

What I actually hated most was Kat Dennings, cute she may be, but she's exactly the same in every film or tv programme, she's meant to be funny but she's just mildly annoying and superfluous.

I suppose since Selvig returned (and that was terrific comedy !) she sort of needed to be there, but her and the Chris O'Dowd thing just kind of got in the way.

(While thinking of comedy in Marvel films, you've given me an idea for a Marvel vs DC comedy/serious thread )

But that's enough from me. What didn't you like about TDW ?
No film is perfect so there has to be something. Where would this film
disappoint Thor fans ?

[Senator Pleasury]

It's a tie to me. Enjoyed both movies because of completely different reasons. In a nutshell, I liked the action more in Thor but MOS's the characters were better fleshed out.

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Cool. Now we've put a lot of words into MOS, time to move on to Thor, this is Thor world thread after all.

Personally, I loved TDW, and am really surprised by Thor fans who didn't. I thought it had all the ingredients of the first film, a pretty menacing villain, and an even stronger performance by Loki (he stole every scene, Hiddleston has just redefined the character, I'd be surprised if we didn't see the Comic Loki emulate his performance).

Like I said, I found the romance a bit unconvincing, but since it was a super-hero movie, that isn't the main thrust. The visuals were staggering, I'll admit they were the equal of MOS, and that's saying a lot for me ( I gave TDW an 8/10 and MOS 9/10, and that's considering I'm not a Thor fan).

The music.....kind of forgettable, Kurse....a bit one-dimensional (but that's his job, to be a mindless engine of destruction), but other than that I thought Marvel really did themselves proud (the mid-credits scene doesn't count).

What I actually hated most was Kat Dennings, cute she may be, but she's exactly the same in every film or tv programme, she's meant to be funny but she's just mildly annoying and superfluous.

I suppose since Selvig returned (and that was terrific comedy !) she sort of needed to be there, but her and the Chris O'Dowd thing just kind of got in the way.

(While thinking of comedy in Marvel films, you've given me an idea for a Marvel vs DC comedy/serious thread )

But that's enough from me. What didn't you like about TDW ?
No film is perfect so there has to be something. Where would this film
disappoint Thor fans ?

I don't have a lot of problems with the romance in the movie in itself, for the time it has, but it is a bit underdeveloped from before. While it's possible to get really interested in someone in a short while it could have been expanded upon more. Perhaps it's in part due to Natalie being pregnant when they were shooting The Avengers.

The music worked well for me. The main theme is probably my favorite in a CMB and I caught myself humming it for a few days after I saw the movie. It's not very complex but it just hit the spot for me.

With Kurse I don't have a problem with him being one note. Him being such a badass but not having a very savage personality is enough for me. I'd sooner want more of Malekith as he's the brains behind everything and it seems like there were some interesting scenes with him that ended up on the cutting room floor. Since I heard the last interview with Taylor I want to have a director's cut of this movie. I'm interested in seeing what that would have been like.

Darcy could have been toned down a bit for my taste as well. I don't think I've seen Kat Dennings in anything else so I can't be bothered by her acting the same way but I take Selvig over Darcy when it comes to the tertiary characters on Earth.

One thing I didn't like was Odin saying that the Asgardians aren't gods. It doesn't really change that much but I think it would have been a braver move in the MCU to actually treat them as gods. That they aren't immortal shouldn't matter because the Norse gods weren't inherently immortal either, nor were they they kind of omniscient/omnipotent gods that we have around today.

For more negative things there's of course the thread in the TDW forum.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

One thing I didn't like was Odin saying that the Asgardians aren't gods. It doesn't really change that much but I think it would have been a braver move in the MCU to actually treat them as gods. That they aren't immortal shouldn't matter because the Norse gods weren't inherently immortal either, nor were they they kind of omniscient/omnipotent gods that we have around today.

For more negative things there's of course the thread in the TDW forum.

Interesting. I thought Odin's statement improved both his character and the Asgardians in general, and was a nice contrast to the hubris of Loki - helps explain Odin's motivations a bit, in that by not seeing himself as a god, he acknowledges his own fallibility, but also allows the audience to be more understanding when he behaves stubbornly or irrationally (which he is a bit, after the death of Frigga).

I thought it was a good touch. Generally when we see so-called 'gods" in films (e.g the Greek gods in Percy Jackson or Clash of the Titans, or immortals, or let's be honest, Thor in the first film, until he becomes human for a day.......they're a bunch of douche bags) in that respect Odin's statement is actually more god-like, in that he doesn't necessarily belive in some innate superiority to other beings.

Also, god is just a label, Jor El says "he'll be a god to them" in terms of Kal El's relative might compared to humans, but as a man of science doesn't say "he'll be God to them" so what he's really saying is that it's all relative.
Superman might seem omnipotent (compared to humans) but he's not some supernatural spiritual being, possessed of innate superiority, and neither are the Asgardians - which is good, as it makes them more relatable. In some ways, Superman's humanity is his best attribute (and MOS had a lot of that, which were its strongest parts), in Thor too, the best bits arise from the very human interrelations of the characters - probably best of all in the Thor -Loki relationship, which was really well done.

As humans we possess god-like might compared to individual insects or small animals. Odin is acknowledging that same point, which says a lot about his immense wisdom, and the great burden of responsibility he bears, as All-father.


I'm a little surprised you didn't like that, as the Odin-Loki conversation was well written and well acted (by two superb actors) definitely one of the film's better moments.

But that's all IMO. cheers !

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Interesting. I thought Odin's statement improved both his character and the Asgardians in general, and was a nice contrast to the hubris of Loki - helps explain Odin's motivations a bit, in that by not seeing himself as a god, he acknowledges his own fallibility, but also allows the audience to be more understanding when he behaves stubbornly or irrationally (which he is a bit, after the death of Frigga).

I thought it was a good touch. Generally when we see so-called 'gods" in films (e.g the Greek gods in Percy Jackson or Clash of the Titans, or immortals, or let's be honest, Thor in the first film, until he becomes human for a day.......they're a bunch of douche bags) in that respect Odin's statement is actually more god-like, in that he doesn't necessarily belive in some innate superiority to other beings.

Also, god is just a label, Jor El says "he'll be a god to them" in terms of Kal El's relative might compared to humans, but as a man of science doesn't say "he'll be God to them" so what he's really saying is that it's all relative.
Superman might seem omnipotent (compared to humans) but he's not some supernatural spiritual being, possessed of innate superiority, and neither are the Asgardians - which is good, as it makes them more relatable. In some ways, Superman's humanity is his best attribute (and MOS had a lot of that, which were its strongest parts), in Thor too, the best bits arise from the very human interrelations of the characters - probably best of all in the Thor -Loki relationship, which was really well done.

As humans we possess god-like might compared to individual insects or small animals. Odin is acknowledging that same point, which says a lot about his immense wisdom, and the great burden of responsibility he bears, as All-father.


I'm a little surprised you didn't like that, as the Odin-Loki conversation was well written and well acted (by two superb actors) definitely one of the film's better moments.

But that's all IMO. cheers !

I don't see why them not being gods would mean that I could have more oversight when they act badly. If you read the texts of various religions most gods act horribly, stupidly and vainly At least at times, regardless if you look at old myth or current active religions. Many people carry definitions of "gods" that are either wrong or incomplete.

I think one of the reasons Thor is such a good addition to the Marvel universe is that it's such an awesomely absurd thing to throw in gods among everything they had created.

I didn't dislike the scene in itself, I just think it was a bad decision to take the easier road. To not challenge the idea about what a god is. And of course also for the reason that the Asgardians actually are gods in the comics, no ifs or buts about it.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

I don't see why them not being gods would mean that I could have more oversight when they act badly. If you read the texts of various religions most gods act horribly, stupidly and vainly At least at times, regardless if you look at old myth or current active religions. Many people carry definitions of "gods" that are either wrong or incomplete.

I think one of the reasons Thor is such a good addition to the Marvel universe is that it's such an awesomely absurd thing to throw in gods among everything they had created.

I didn't dislike the scene in itself, I just think it was a bad decision to take the easier road. To not challenge the idea about what a god is. And of course also for the reason that the Asgardians actually are gods in the comics, no ifs or buts about it.

Looks like agree to disagree on that one. Like I said, I think Odin's statement improves both his, and all the Asgardian characters - because clearly they aren't immortal, merely tough and long-lived - but that works, because then when Thor goes into battle, you know that he's risking his life.

Also, it makes us forgive them as an audience, for all their stuff ups -and makes an important distinction between Odin/Thor and Loki, because he really does feel the entitlement of a god, to rule others, whereas they don't. Anyway, we're not going to agree on that one, so fair enough.

[Mjölnir]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

Looks like agree to disagree on that one. Like I said, I think Odin's statement improves both his, and all the Asgardian characters - because clearly they aren't immortal, merely tough and long-lived - but that works, because then when Thor goes into battle, you know that he's risking his life.

Also, it makes us forgive them as an audience, for all their stuff ups -and makes an important distinction between Odin/Thor and Loki, because he really does feel the entitlement of a god, to rule others, whereas they don't. Anyway, we're not going to agree on that one, so fair enough.

Being a god doesn't automatically mean that you are immortal, as the Norse gods weren't immortal in the myths either. Nor were they all-powerful or all-knowing. That was what I was referring to, that people think that gods necessarily are omnipotent or omniscient. The Asgardians in the MCU is a farily good fit for what the Aesir were in the Nordic myths.

And while you may feel that you sooner forgive them for it, making dumb decisions and committing bad deeds is part and parcel for gods. The Norse gods did it, the Greek gods definitely did that, the god in the Old Testament is crazy, etc.

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by Mjölnir

Being a god doesn't automatically mean that you are immortal, as the Norse gods weren't immortal in the myths either. Nor were they all-powerful or all-knowing. That was what I was referring to, that people think that gods necessarily are omnipotent or omniscient. The Asgardians in the MCU is a farily good fit for what the Aesir were in the Nordic myths.

And while you may feel that you sooner forgive them for it, making dumb decisions and committing bad deeds is part and parcel for gods. The Norse gods did it, the Greek gods definitely did that, the god in the Old Testament is crazy, etc.

So what does being a god mean ? What is the key feature of god-hood ?
I ask because it sounds like this is the point we're differing on.

Personally, for me, immortality would be something I would associate with
gods. But that's just IMO


Fallibility is certainly a hallmark of the most enjoyable (and sometimes gruesome) stories about 'gods', as you say, especially the Greek gods.

So when you say the Asgardians are gods, what do you mean ?


Also, I posted a thread for you Thor-fans to relive all of the Thunder-God's most glorious triumphs, (and didn't say a word about Beta Ray Bill, the Hulk or Superman) and even started it off with probably his best one ever, the conquest of Death (well, Death personified as Hel).

Sadly, none of Thor's other fans have yet to post a particularly cracking victory for the big blonde hammer-thrower. That leaves me as the sole promoter of Thor, which just seems wrong.

I challenge you and the rest of the Asgardi-fans to look at Thor's 40+ year history and dig out some of his greatest triumphs, as there are probably many I've never seen or heard about.

[echostation]

MOS is clearly the bettreyr film stock. Look at the quality of the film sotck and resolution.. Thor still looked like a TV film in many of those in respect.

[psylockolussus]

The quality of both films is not that far from one another. Both are average at best. But Thor: the Dark World is better simply because it didn't feel like a list of bullet points and the film just didn't rely on action sequences to wow the audience. I also prefer the visual effects of Thor.

EDIT: I didn't know we are comparing MOS to the 1st Thor film. Thor is definitely better, the script alone trumps MOS.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by Batmannerism

So what does being a god mean ? What is the key feature of god-hood ?
I ask because it sounds like this is the point we're differing on.

Personally, for me, immortality would be something I would associate with
gods. But that's just IMO


Fallibility is certainly a hallmark of the most enjoyable (and sometimes gruesome) stories about 'gods', as you say, especially the Greek gods.

So when you say the Asgardians are gods, what do you mean ?


Also, I posted a thread for you Thor-fans to relive all of the Thunder-God's most glorious triumphs, (and didn't say a word about Beta Ray Bill, the Hulk or Superman) and even started it off with probably his best one ever, the conquest of Death (well, Death personified as Hel).

Sadly, none of Thor's other fans have yet to post a particularly cracking victory for the big blonde hammer-thrower. That leaves me as the sole promoter of Thor, which just seems wrong.

I challenge you and the rest of the Asgardi-fans to look at Thor's 40+ year history and dig out some of his greatest triumphs, as there are probably many I've never seen or heard about.

I think there's a simpler answer: "God/god has no single definition." Even leaving aside the Big-G singular creator omnipotence, and just dealing with more pantheonic deities, there is a *wide* difference in understanding between the Greeks and the Norse, between the Hindus and the Japanese. The only common elements are "greater than human" and "worshipped/revered by humans."

[Batmannerism]

Originally Posted by metaphysician

I think there's a simpler answer: "God/god has no single definition." Even leaving aside the Big-G singular creator omnipotence, and just dealing with more pantheonic deities, there is a *wide* difference in understanding between the Greeks and the Norse, between the Hindus and the Japanese. The only common elements are "greater than human" and "worshipped/revered by humans."

So the answer is...there isn't one. Fair enough, that's not very satisfying, but probably as truthful an answer as we could hope for.

Is that ironic (or just Alanis Morisette ironic) that this answer comes from a guy named "Metaphysician" ? (since it's a rather metaphysical answer ).

cheers