Thor 2: Rotten Tomato Watch

[tek]

i think the rotten tomatoes scores are reasonable indicators. It does by and large escape the closed off general perceptions/sentimentalism of a fanboy community. look at the example of how alot of fans on these comic book movie sites think IM3 is an abomination. so out of touch with the general populus. the extreme views of some is so transparent and provides great comic fodder

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

I don't think they are tired of CBMs. The Avengers/The Dark Knight Rises got a really high scores last year, The Amazing Spider-Man is not even that good and it still got 73%. This year, Iron Man 3 got a decent score despite the lukewarming response here.

I just don't think most critics based their score on visual effects, set pieces, scope and action sequences ALONE. They focus more on the story, script and character development, especially those things usually don't better through time. Visual effects, set pieces, action sequences and scope will get better and bigger through time because of technology, but story? script? character development? Its totally in the hands of the filmmaker.

I dunno. Some comic material is more "relatable" to the people in these positions than others. I get the impression when it comes to the Thor franchise that they have a problem with the source. Thor is not grounded. It is ridiculous. Which is why I love it. Lee/Kirby Thor and Fantastic Four are some of my all time favorite comics and the imagination meter was off the charts.

And when I read critics lamenting the fact for example that the universe is in peril yet again, what in the world are they expecting a hero like Thor to do? Stop bank robbers? Really? That's what Spider-Man is for. It's not Thor's fault that the end of world/universe/whatever plot line is used in other films. And it will continue to be used as long as people continue to concoct stories of this scope.

I feel complaints about unevenness are also unfair. The Thor comic always consisted of a wacky mashup of sci-fi, fantasy and superheroics. There should be tonal shifts and bizarre juxtapositions. And there is humor in Thor. Lots of it. Thor always makes me laugh.

I felt Taylor did a bang up job of delivering a film true to the comic within the constraints of the MCU. As a Thor fan I feel I'm a better judge of what is a good rendition than a bunch of stuffed shirt movie snobs.

Lastly, for guys who get paid to review these films they sure don't do their research. I see a lot of erroneous statements in reviews which makes me just throw my hands up and say the heck with all of it. Where it bothers me is when it serves to discourage people from seeing a good entertaining film that so many people have worked so hard on.

Thankfully it's not the case with this film. It is doing extremely well at the box office. Folks are going to see it and they're having a good time. As a fan, I understand the limited appeal of the character so I'm delighted with the results.

At the very least that means I'll live to see a Thor 3 in the very near future.

[psylockolussus]

I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm pretty sure critics didn't give TDW a negative response because of the source material, but because of the movie itself.

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm pretty sure critics didn't give TDW a negative response because of the source material, but because of the movie itself.

Comments from reviewers like "Thor needs to focus on being a superhero film and not sci-fi" or "why can't Thor just rescue a puppy?" say otherwise.

What I'm trying to say about certain critics is this: They don't get Thor.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Comments from reviewers like "Thor needs to focus on being a superhero film and not sci-fi" or "why can't Thor just rescue a puppy?" say otherwise.

What I'm trying to say about certain critics is this: They don't get Thor.

Are we saying that the writers of TDW do get Thor?

[insideguy]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Comments from reviewers like "Thor needs to focus on being a superhero film and not sci-fi" or "why can't Thor just rescue a puppy?" say otherwise.

What I'm trying to say about certain critics is this: They don't get Thor.

I know its just nitpicking but putting sci fi in concepts that are not in their nature sci fi bugs me. Captain America did the same thing. I know I am not supposed to bring up other movies and I sort of understand what they are trying to do with Thor but I dont really like it. Putting guys with lasers in Asgard is sort of like putting guys with lasers in LOTR. It just seems weird. Reminds me of the old GI JOE cartoon

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by insideguy

I know its just nitpicking but putting sci fi in concepts that are not in their nature sci fi bugs me. Captain America did the same thing. I know I am not supposed to bring up other movies and I sort of understand what they are trying to do with Thor but I dont really like it. Putting guys with lasers in Asgard is sort of like putting guys with lasers in LOTR. It just seems weird. Reminds me of the old GI JOE cartoon

How did Captain America do that?

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Are we saying that the writers of TDW do get Thor?

Absolutely. They have kept the characters true to life while melding the universe with the context already established by the very first Iron Man on through Avengers. I don't expect an exact translation but the spirit of the comic is there.

Originally Posted by insideguy

I know its just nitpicking but putting sci fi in concepts that are not in their nature sci fi bugs me. Captain America did the same thing. I know I am not supposed to bring up other movies and I sort of understand what they are trying to do with Thor but I dont really like it. Putting guys with lasers in Asgard is sort of like putting guys with lasers in LOTR. It just seems weird. Reminds me of the old GI JOE cartoon

Jack Kirby's Thor was loaded with sci fi. Don't really see the issue here.

The Cap movie had a little too much for my liking but it was forgivable especially considering what that film was trying to accomplish. Again I feel the heart of Steve Rogers' character shined through.

[insideguy]

Originally Posted by Smashlilman

How did Captain America do that?

Laser guns in 1944 among other things.

[insideguy]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Absolutely. They have kept the characters true to life while melding the universe with the context already established by the very first Iron Man on through Avengers. I don't expect an exact translation but the spirit of the comic is there.



Jack Kirby's Thor was loaded with sci fi. Don't really see the issue here.

The Cap movie had a little too much for my liking but it was forgivable especially considering what that film was trying to accomplish. Again I feel the heart of Steve Rogers' character shined through.

Kirby takes a crap and its sci fi related. I am just attempting to explain why critics might get a bit confused about what they are watching. Its hard to wrap the head around aliens in realms who are mythology based earth deities. It gets a little convuluted to alot of critics I think. Which then turns them off to the rest of the movie even if its pretty good.

[Ragnaroknroll]

I believe you're right. It is convoluted. Of course the geek in me loves it for that reason. But I wouldn't expect critics to love it. Especially critics that didn't grow up reading comic books. And Thor has always been a somewhat bizarre concept even by comic book standards. The important thing is that it's appealing enough that the general audiences love it. And although I put little stock in RT, I'm pleased that it scored well enough to get a fresh rating.

[Mysteryman]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Are we saying that the writers of TDW do get Thor?

Did you like the original better?

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Absolutely. They have kept the characters true to life while melding the universe with the context already established by the very first Iron Man on through Avengers. I don't expect an exact translation but the spirit of the comic is there.

I am not talking an exact translation or a shared universe. I am talking about the characters. I feel like the first film understood Thor better, but more importantly it feels like their are back steps randomly taken in TDW with Thor. Same with papa. To make conflict, it feels like the ignored the third act of the first film in terms of character development.

Loki has been the most consistent, even if he overshadows a bit.

Originally Posted by Mysteryman

Did you like the original better.

Yes.

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I am not talking an exact translation or a shared universe. I am talking about the characters. I feel like the first film understood Thor better, but more importantly it feels like their are back steps randomly taken in TDW with Thor. Same with papa. To make conflict, it feels like the ignored the third act of the first film in terms of character development.

Loki has been the most consistent, even if he overshadows a bit.


Yes.

I'd be interested in some examples as to why you thought they did not understand Thor or what you consider steps backward with Odin.

I loved TDW because I felt we saw some real character development with Thor building on the first film as well as the Avengers. Loki is always mocking him for what he perceives to be Thor's stupidity but here we see a shrewder, wiser Thor who still retains his devil-may-care recklessness at times. Also Thor is colder towards Loki after all his crimes but he still clearly loves his brother. Hiddleston and Hemsworth were fantastic together. The best we've seen them yet.

We also see Odin and Thor in reversed roles, showing father and son are not so different after all. There are many times in the comics where Odin is pompous and stubborn and clearly not so wise after all. Also in the end Thor rethinking what it means to be a king, relinquishes his claim to the throne in favor of Midgard and adhering to his affection for Jane, furthering the rift with Odin - very true to the comics and a significant shift away from where he started in the first film.

Thor's cockiness in the battle of Vanaheim and his offer to the Kronan and Malekith for accepting their surrender were all signature Thor moments.

After Loki says "satisfaction is not in my nature", Thor's line "surrender is not in mine" is the very essence of Thor.

[fixxxer]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

I'd be interested in some examples as to why you thought they did not understand Thor or what you consider steps backward with Odin.

I loved TDW because I felt we saw some real character development with Thor building on the first film as well as the Avengers. Loki is always mocking him for what he perceives to be Thor's stupidity but here we see a shrewder, wiser Thor who still retains his devil-may-care recklessness at times. Also Thor is colder towards Loki after all his crimes but he still clearly loves his brother. Hiddleston and Hemsworth were fantastic together. The best we've seen them yet.

We also see Odin and Thor in reversed roles, showing father and son are not so different after all. There are many times in the comics where Odin is pompous and stubborn and clearly not so wise after all. Also in the end Thor rethinking what it means to be a king, relinquishes his claim to the throne in favor of Midgard and adhering to his affection for Jane, furthering the rift with Odin - very true to the comics and a significant shift away from where he started in the first film.

Thor's cockiness in the battle of Vanaheim and his offer to the Kronan and Malekith for accepting their surrender were all signature Thor moments.

After Loki says "satisfaction is not in my nature", Thor's line "surrender is not in mine" is the very essence of Thor.

Oh, completely agreed with everything in this post. Excellent characterization all around, great action, good humor. Some flaws like: slightly weak in terms of Malekith's motivations, a little choppy editing-wise, not the greatest of final battles and a few more, but not nearly enough for 34% of it's (thus far) 202 reviewers to outright not recommend the film. That IMO reeks a little of "these Marvel folks have gotten too big for their britches... let's pull them down a peg" from the critical community.

[Sharkboy]

Sci fi, comic book movie, romance...none of it matters if the film isn't all that great. Apparantly plenty of critics felt it lacked. Who really listens to RT scores anymore anyway...I'm still shocked as hell (but not really) that Man of Steel got such a low score.

[Mysteryman]

Originally Posted by fixxxer

Oh, completely agreed with everything in this post. Excellent characterization all around, great action, good humor. Some flaws like: slightly weak in terms of Malekith's motivations, a little choppy editing-wise, not the greatest of final battles and a few more, but not nearly enough for 34% of it's (thus far) 202 reviewers to outright not recommend the film. That IMO reeks a little of "these Marvel folks have gotten too big for their britches... let's pull them down a peg" from the critical community.

Or, they didnt like the film.

[CosmicPinchy]

I prefer the IMDB ratings to RT. It's what I look to when deciding what movie to watch. Whenever I skim through Shaw's VOD, I always check with IMDB what the rating for a particular movie is before I buy it for the next 24 hours.

T:TDW's rating on IMDB is 7.7. That's pretty damn good.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by jmc

Cap was definitely as bland a superhero movie as you can get. It felt like people were overly forgiving of a movie that was just so damn vanilla in its presentation, and it still baffles me to this day why it was given such a free pass. I actually found it worse than Thor because at least Thor had an interesting villain, Cap was like having a lettuce and cabbage sandwich on white bread with a side order of raw beans and a glass of water to wash it down.

Best description of that movie that I have ever read.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Sharkboy

Sci fi, comic book movie, romance...none of it matters if the film isn't all that great. Apparently plenty of critics felt it lacked. Who really listens to RT scores anymore anyway...I'm still shocked as hell (but not really) that Man of Steel got such a low score.

Yeah I agree. I'm shocked that Thor 2 is in the 60's. I'm starting to think just don't like all of the "Sci-fi, comic book movie" stuff anymore and they would rather prefer groin shots of RDJ and fake villains.

[JeetKuneDo]

Originally Posted by insideguy

Audience percent for a movie like this is always going to be high. This is a genere movie and people who flock to the theater in the first 2 days to see movies like this tend to love the genre. Marvel has a cult following and they flood rt with positive reviews. The average joe who walks out of seeing thor isnt going to jump on rt to express their opinion.

Sounds like a stronger case for paying more attention to audience ratings if you are a fan of a genre. The opinion of a guy who works for the New Yorker magazine and has a poster of Citizen Kane on his wall is pretty useless to a person who is a big fan of comic book films. It would be like getting an opinion on an opera from Harry Knowles.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by JeetKuneDo

Sounds like a stronger case for paying more attention to audience ratings if you are a fan of a genre. The opinion of a guy who works for the New Yorker magazine and has a poster of Citizen Kane on his wall is pretty useless to a person who is a big fan of comic book films. It would be like getting an opinion on an opera from Harry Knowles.

That doesn't really translate. Film is film, no matter the genre. Film is not opera.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

I'd be interested in some examples as to why you thought they did not understand Thor or what you consider steps backward with Odin.

The Thor at the end of the first film and the Avengers seem to finally start learning he doesn't know everything. More importantly, that while his father isn't perfect, it would be best to actually start listening to him. Their relationship seemed to be a good point, perhaps for the first time, and it is almost dismissed in TDW for more "drama". Thor is still defiant.

And it isn't Jane. They mention it, build it up a bit early, and pretty much gloss over it the rest of the way.

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

I loved TDW because I felt we saw some real character development with Thor building on the first film as well as the Avengers. Loki is always mocking him for what he perceives to be Thor's stupidity but here we see a shrewder, wiser Thor who still retains his devil-may-care recklessness at times. Also Thor is colder towards Loki after all his crimes but he still clearly loves his brother. Hiddleston and Hemsworth were fantastic together. The best we've seen them yet.

Loki mocks Thor as stupid, but he has never been in the films. He simply has morality. That is a common trait. Thor did however do plenty of stupid in TDW.

The best parts of the film were Thor and Loki, mainly as Loki's arc actually felt the most complete of everyone's.

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

We also see Odin and Thor in reversed roles, showing father and son are not so different after all. There are many times in the comics where Odin is pompous and stubborn and clearly not so wise after all. Also in the end Thor rethinking what it means to be a king, relinquishes his claim to the throne in favor of Midgard and adhering to his affection for Jane, furthering the rift with Odin - very true to the comics and a significant shift away from where he started in the first film.

And right here is the problem. This would of all be good if they actually established in the film. If they made Thor reconsider the position of king through the parallels between Odin, Bor and Malekith. If they made Odin wrong. But Odin is right. It is Thor who risk the many for one, while also seemingly not caring about his own loved ones not named Jane.

And the ending bothers me the most. It spites in the face of what was established at the end of the first film and the words Thor actually says. How can he protect all the realms from Earth? It is clearly the opposite. He focusing himself to one place for selfish reasons. Now if they had set light to the position of king and made it toxic and something to frown upon, ok. But they didn't, and the only real way for Thor to protect all nine realms without Mojlnir being able to make its ports is from Asgard.

Originally Posted by Ragnaroknroll

Thor's cockiness in the battle of Vanaheim and his offer to the Kronan and Malekith for accepting their surrender were all signature Thor moments.

After Loki says "satisfaction is not in my nature", Thor's line "surrender is not in mine" is the very essence of Thor.

Thor is at his most Tho-like in battle. But lines are lines. Actions speak louder, even on film.

[fixxxer]

Originally Posted by Mysteryman

Or, they didnt like the film.

Or a significant number of them went in not wanting to like the film.

[Ragnaroknroll]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

The Thor at the end of the first film and the Avengers seem to finally start learning he doesn't know everything. More importantly, that while his father isn't perfect, it would be best to actually start listening to him. Their relationship seemed to be a good point, perhaps for the first time, and it is almost dismissed in TDW for more "drama". Thor is still defiant.

Yeah but that's not like real life. Thor was humbled for sure and learned from that experience but people don't completely change overnight. Just because Thor and his father are in a good place doesn't mean they are never going to disagree again. Relationships ebb and flow.

Also Thor was very respectful of his father at the beginning of the film. He did his duty restoring order to the nine realms. It wasn't until Jane arrived and later Frigga died that tensions arose again.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Loki mocks Thor as stupid, but he has never been in the films. He simply has morality. That is a common trait. Thor did however do plenty of stupid in TDW.

No Thor fell for his trick in Avengers in the Hulk prison. Thor also fell for his tricks in the first film when he told him Odin had died and even in the very beginning was totally manipulated by Loki into heading to Jotunheim and starting a war. Thor also fell for Loki feigning doubt and regret on top of Stark Tower at which point Loki stabbed him with his Asgardian blade. Some of that is morality (wanting to believe there is good in his brother) but some of it is just Loki being Loki the master deceiver and/or Thor thinking with his fists first.

In this film, Thor actually preemptively outwitted Loki at one point ("You lied to me! I'm impressed...) and saw through Loki's illusion in the dungeon ("No more illusions). That's character development.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

The best parts of the film were Thor and Loki, mainly as Loki's arc actually felt the most complete of everyone's.

I don't feel that was the reason. I just attribute it to great chemistry and the fact that the sibling strife between the two of them is one of the best parts of Thor's story.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

And right here is the problem. This would of all be good if they actually established in the film. If they made Thor reconsider the position of king through the parallels between Odin, Bor and Malekith. If they made Odin wrong. But Odin is right. It is Thor who risk the many for one, while also seemingly not caring about his own loved ones not named Jane.

Well I think you're expecting a lot for such a short run time with multiple concurrent plotlines. I agree threads could've been flushed out but it is what it is. I definitely would love to see a director's cut. However, Odin was not right. He also was blinded by grief. Asgard would've fallen and Malekith would've gotten the Aether anyway. Plus Thor is Thor. He's going to rush headlong into things sometimes.

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

And the ending bothers me the most. It spites in the face of what was established at the end of the first film and the words Thor actually says. How can he protect all the realms from Earth? It is clearly the opposite. He focusing himself to one place for selfish reasons. Now if they had set light to the position of king and made it toxic and something to frown upon, ok. But they didn't, and the only real way for Thor to protect all nine realms without Mojlnir being able to make its ports is from Asgard.


Thor is at his most Tho-like in battle. But lines are lines. Actions speak louder, even on film.

But they did establish some of the toxic elements of being king. Odin saying "I killed them all" to Jane when talking about the Dark Elves. He also was willing to sacrifice "every last drop of Asgardian blood" and Thor asks "How are you different from Malekith?" In the end of the first film Thor destroyed the Bifrost to save the very people he would've killed with his bare hands (The Jotuns). Clearly his softening on Earth means stuff like that doesn't sit well with him.

You make a good point about Mjolnir not being able to create portals being a weakness. However, Heimdall responds almost instantaneously to Thor's request for transport. Even so, I fail to see your issues with Thor favoring Midgard. He always has in the comics and it's always been a bone of contention with Odin while creating moral dilemmas for Thor when he must choose between dealing with simultaneous threats on both Earth and Asgard. Motives are questionable for sure but they can be explored in the future. It sounds like you are complaining that Thor is being true to the source material?