Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 2

[Saturius]

Yeah, I'm really surprised so many people seem to want a love triangle. That's the last thing I want to see in a Thor movie and triangles tend to be the worst part of any movie. I think a lot of people are just mad that Thor's not with Sif so they cling to wanting a love triangle. Why, I don't know. Thor did get with Jane in the comics. So the movies are showing that. He eventually got with Sif as well and I have no reason to think that if they keep making these Thor movies that they won't eventually get there with her either.

I'm glad this film went with one love interest and stuck to it without any silly triangles. It wasn't developed well, but at least they went with one and stuck to their guns. They hinted at Sif's feelings for Thor and that was enough for future development. They can pick up the plot in later movies, which is good cause it won't have come out of nowhere, but trying to do anything more than that at this stage in the films doesn't seem necessary.

 

[The_Manhunter]

I was expecting to enjoy this movie, but I absolutely loved it. 10/10

Only thing I was dissapointed in was Sif being replaced by that stupid intern

 

[Senator Pleasury]

A love triangle requires Thor to have some kind of reciprocated feelings towards Sif, creating confusion for himself, which would complete the triangle.

We don't have that in this film. They didn't include anything else because it was unimportant and didn't serve the direction of the story. So there was no point in "exploring" anything. How many more scenes do we need of Sif subtly hinting at her feelings to a man that does not want her? Three were enough.

No it doesn't. Even when the usual love triangle includes one person in love with other two, it's not necessary that to be called one. Two people in love with the same person covers the wide definition of love triangle.

That said, they did include Sif and her attraction to Thor, they did include Odin being against Thor's love for a human being and favoring Sif. They include that and then they did nothing with it. If for leaving out "unimportant stuff for the story" they should have begun with NOT including Sif's attraction to Thor at all. It becomes unimportant once they decide doing nothing at all with it.

We didn't need more scenes establishing Sif's feelings, we needed either more scenes developing whatever could have happened between her and Thor-Jane or nothing of that at all. We were left halfway through, though.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Yeah, I'm really surprised so many people seem to want a love triangle. That's the last thing I want to see in a Thor movie and triangles tend to be the worst part of any movie. I think a lot of people are just mad that Thor's not with Sif so they cling to wanting a love triangle. Why, I don't know. Thor did get with Jane in the comics. So the movies are showing that. He eventually got with Sif as well and I have no reason to think that if they keep making these Thor movies that they won't eventually get there with her either.

Nobody wanted a love triangle, but director Alan Taylor decided to hint at one. If you're surprised at people wanting a love triangle, start with him.

I'm glad this film went with one love interest and stuck to it without any silly triangles. It wasn't developed well, but at least they went with one and stuck to their guns. They hinted at Sif's feelings for Thor and that was enough for future development. They can pick up the plot in later movies, which is good cause it won't have come out of nowhere, but trying to do anything more than that at this stage in the films doesn't seem necessary.

The movie went with one love interest, which was very uninteresting. Not saying Sif would have been better but nothing really happened between Thor and Jane, other than sitcom type of jokes about being jealous at Jane's other dates or how Thor introduced her to his parents.

 

[DA_Champion]

Just got back from a second viewing I decided to catch on a whim after my last class for the day.

I was hopping against hope it would play better a second viewing as others have said it did.

NOPE

It plays ever worse. All the issues I had with it the first time are only more apparent. I'm so shocked people are finding this better than the first film.

The first film is light on it's feet, has a real passion behind it, is glorious to look at and the drama is much more believable.

Thor: TDW lacks a personal touch. Of course they just HAD to darken the visuals up. One of the strongest aspects of the first film was its unabashed embrace of it's fantastical elements. The colors and look of Asgard where beautiful and magical. In TDW it's just another dark and gritty fantasy world. The action was just as bland a second time and Thor's lack of anything to do is only more prominent. When Kat Dennings stands out more than the damn HERO of the film you know you have an issue.

Loki and the score are about the only things making it worth seeing imo.

I thought Thor 1 had better visuals.

The ice planet looks much better than the volcano planet. It actually looked like an alien world.

Asgard in the second movie looks like its from the star wars prequels.

 

[TeeKay]

Eh glad they didn't include a love triangle. I had enough of those with those God-Awful Twilight films.-_- btw, my girlfriend dragged me watch them *shrugs*

 

[The Shape]

Haven't really seen this brought up lately but....WHY NO HELMET FOR THOR WHATSOEVER? I just don't understand Marvel's reasoning for this. It's an awesome aesthetic aspect of Thor. He doesn't have to wear it in every scene, but even once or twice and during big battles.

He didn't wear it once during The Avengers (although Loki wore his multiple times), no sign of it in TDW, so I guess Marvel just wants everyone to completely forget about it. Meanwhile, other Asgardians wear their own helmets. The whole thing just seems strange to me. I'd love to hear Feige explain the reasoning for it.

 

[TeeKay]

Haven't really seen this brought up lately but....WHY NO HELMET FOR THOR WHATSOEVER? I just don't understand Marvel's reasoning for this. It's an awesome aesthetic aspect of Thor. He doesn't have to wear it in every scene, but even once or twice and during big battles.

He didn't wear it once during The Avengers (although Loki wore his multiple times), no sign of it in TDW, so I guess Marvel just wants everyone to completely forget about it. Meanwhile, other Asgardians wear their own helmets. The whole thing just seems strange to me. I'd love to hear Feige explain the reasoning for it.

Because Thor is a God and he doesn't need it in battle. Seriously though, Thor wearing a his helmet in battle is the equivalent of Hulk carrying a shield in battle. It's unnecessary IMO but I get why some fans don't like the fact he doesn't wear his helmet in the MCU.

 

[DA_Champion]

Eh glad they didn't include a love triangle. I had enough of those with those God-Awful Twilight films.-_- btw, my girlfriend dragged me watch them *shrugs*

As an action adventure sci fi movie, thor 2 is a failure.

However, it is a passable romantic comedy. Therefore, a love triangle might have accentuated the positives might have made a better movie: more sif, mire darcy, more jane, etc.

I still dont get why that after the credits scene was not in the movie.

 

[TeeKay]

As an action adventure sci fi movie, thor 2 is a failure.

However, it is a passable romantic comedy. Therefore, a love triangle might have accentuated the positives might have made a better movie: more sif, mire darcy, more jane, etc.

I still dont get why that after the credits scene was not in the movie.

Beats me.That should have been the final scene before the credits IMO.

 

[The Shape]

Because Thor is a God and he doesn't need it in battle. Seriously though, Thor wearing a his helmet in battle is the equivalent of Hulk carrying a shield in battle. It's unnecessary IMO but I can get why some fans don't like it.

Actually, that's not an equivalent at all. Hulk carrying a shield has never been something that the character does. Also, in movies featuring the Hulk, there aren't other Hulks running around carrying shields while Hulk has nothing. ALSO, most Asgardians like Thor and Heimdall are "gods"...and yet the others wear helmets.

It has nothing to do with him needing a helmet for protection, per say. Rather, those helmets are a part of Asgardian culture. They have been present in both Thor films, and Thor even wore one a bit in the first film, though now his helmet has been ignored. Just seems like a strange inconsistency, if you ask me.

 

[The Shape]

I still dont get why that after the credits scene was not in the movie.

One of the biggest bone-head moves by Marvel to date, if you ask me. Sacrificing full closure for the main character in favor of a Loki cliffhanger to end the film.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

One of the biggest bone-head moves by Marvel to date, if you ask me. Sacrificing full closure for the main character in favor of a Loki cliffhanger to end the film.

 

[TeeKay]

Actually, that's not an equivalent at all. Hulk carrying a shield has never been something that the character does. Also, in movies featuring the Hulk, there aren't other Hulks running around carrying shields while Hulk has nothing. ALSO, most Asgardians like Thor and Heimdall are "gods"...and yet the others wear helmets.

It has nothing to do with him needing a helmet for protection, per say. Rather, those helmets are a part of Asgardian culture. They have been present in both Thor films, and Thor even wore one a bit in the first film, though now his helmet has been ignored. Just seems like a strange inconsistency, if you ask me.

The whole God thing was a joke but good point. Thing is though, Thor never used it in battle in the first film. So for him to just suddenly wear it in battle would be odd IMO. I wouldn't say it's an inconsistency since he's never actually used it in battle before.If he had used in the first film and the Avengers but didnt use it in this film, I think that would be an inconsistency. But fair enough.

 

[Rock Sexton]

No it doesn't. Even when the usual love triangle includes one person in love with other two, it's not necessary that to be called one. Two people in love with the same person covers the wide definition of love triangle.

The movie hasn't even established love ..... has either one of them said the word? No. So more proof there is no "love triangle".

That said, they did include Sif and her attraction to Thor, they did include Odin being against Thor's love for a human being and favoring Sif. They include that and then they did nothing with it. If for leaving out "unimportant stuff for the story" they should have begun with NOT including Sif's attraction to Thor at all. It becomes unimportant once they decide doing nothing at all with it.

No. It opens up the door to future tales in later Thor movies. You guys turn into such complainers when they don't fit every aspect of every Thor mythos into a single stand alone film. Be thankful they covered it in the first place, it gives you something to possibly look forward to later on down the road.

We didn't need more scenes establishing Sif's feelings, we needed either more scenes developing whatever could have happened between her and Thor-Jane or nothing of that at all. We were left halfway through, though.

Nothing could develop between her and Thor/Jane. Thor holds no emotional attachment to Sif. Where are you going to take possible bad blood between Sif and Jane? Nowhere. She's a human. The interpersonal squabbles were between Thor and Odin, Odin and Loki, and Thor and Loki. Sif's romantic exploits serve no purpose in driving the film. Therefore they're extraneous. You wanting to see more is a personal want, not an element that detracts from the movie.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I thought Thor 1 had better visuals.

The ice planet looks much better than the volcano planet. It actually looked like an alien world.

Asgard in the second movie looks like its from the star wars prequels.

Only when they first transported to Johunteim. When they arrived at Laufey's doorstep, it wreaked of indoor setup and they struggled with effectively lighting it.

 

[jmc]

Nothing could develop between her and Thor/Jane. Thor holds no emotional attachment to Sif. Where are you going to take possible bad blood between Sif and Jane? Nowhere. She's a human. The interpersonal squabbles were between Thor and Odin, Odin and Loki, and Thor and Loki. Sif's romantic exploits serve no purpose in driving the film. Therefore they're extraneous. You wanting to see more is a personal want, not an element that detracts from the movie.

The question I have for Sif and the Warriors 3 is is there much that can be done with these characters in future films if Marvel are going to persist with a half Earth based/half Asgard based series? It seems as if those 4 characters served their purpose in the first film, being Thor's buddies as it were, once he 'grew up' so to speak and interacted with Earth there seems to be less need for them.

 

[Son of Coul]

I still dont get why that after the credits scene was not in the movie.

Me neither, that was very odd. It's straight-up closure that didn't have any reason to be pushed back. I was expecting the person coming from the Bifrost to turn out to be Volstagg or something in a quick gag, but they actually resolved something from the movie in it. Just sort of a bizarre decision.

 

[kosh33]

A love triangle requires Thor to have some kind of reciprocated feelings towards Sif, creating confusion for himself, which would complete the triangle.



correct, there is no triangle... just an angle with thor at the cornert:

 

[kosh33]

which after credits scene was not in the movie?

 

[TeeKay]

A love triangle requires Thor to have some kind of reciprocated feelings towards Sif, creating confusion for himself, which would complete the triangle.



correct, there is no triangle... just an angle with thor at the cornert:

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The movie hasn't even established love ..... has either one of them said the word? No. So more proof there is no "love triangle".

Is this the level of spoon-feeding you need? "Verbally said or it didn't happen"?

No. It opens up the door to future tales in later Thor movies. You guys turn into such complainers when they don't fit every aspect of every Thor mythos into a single stand alone film. Be thankful they covered it in the first place, it gives you something to possibly look forward to later on down the road.

No, I'm not thankful they establish things they don't explore in the slightest.

Nothing could develop between her and Thor/Jane. Thor holds no emotional attachment to Sif. Where are you going to take possible bad blood between Sif and Jane? Nowhere. She's a human. The interpersonal squabbles were between Thor and Odin, Odin and Loki, and Thor and Loki. Sif's romantic exploits serve no purpose in driving the film. Therefore they're extraneous. You wanting to see more is a personal want, not an element that detracts from the movie.

So, you told me this "Opens the door to future tales in later Thor movies" but "nothing could develop between her and Thor/Jane"? So, according to you, we are supposed to expect something in future movies that cannot to be developed in future movies?

Me wanting to see more of it is just an expectation based on the director's abilities to develop what he has put on the table himself. I didn't even thought of seeing a second girl interested in Thor, but Taylor established that. And he did NOTHING with it. The potential sequels shouldn't be a free pass for poor writing.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The movie hasn't even established love ..... has either one of them said the word? No. So more proof there is no "love triangle".



No. It opens up the door to future tales in later Thor movies. You guys turn into such complainers when they don't fit every aspect of every Thor mythos into a single stand alone film. Be thankful they covered it in the first place, it gives you something to possibly look forward to later on down the road.



Nothing could develop between her and Thor/Jane. Thor holds no emotional attachment to Sif. Where are you going to take possible bad blood between Sif and Jane? Nowhere. She's a human. The interpersonal squabbles were between Thor and Odin, Odin and Loki, and Thor and Loki. Sif's romantic exploits serve no purpose in driving the film. Therefore they're extraneous. You wanting to see more is a personal want, not an element that detracts from the movie.

im gonna play devil's advocate her for a second. I think what you're describing is infact the "classic" love triangle concept.. but from a literary sense... when one angle is a unrequited love.... it's still a triangle. It's just a spin on it.

you're both correct

 

[Senator Pleasury]

im gonna play devil's advocate her for a second. I think what you're describing is infact the "classic" love triangle concept.. but from a literary sense... when one angle is a unrequited love.... it's still a triangle. It's just a spin on it.

you're both correct

Finally.

 

[Feenix]

One of the biggest bone-head moves by Marvel to date, if you ask me. Sacrificing full closure for the main character in favor of a Loki cliffhanger to end the film.

Why would you want full closure in a sequel when there is still one more movie to be made? That kind of defeats the purpose of having a Thor 3, no?