Fan Review Thread SPOILERS INSIDE - Part 2

[Mjölnir]

I didn't leave that conversation, I had already provided some (albeit incomplete) explanation. I admit it wasn't complete, but a complete explanation would exceed the length of anything either of us has ever posted here. I'm also not going to repost the arguments I posted. Use the search function.

Basically, everybody can have an opinion on anything, if you ask them. But not all opinions are equal as you believe. As a general rule, the more intelligent and informed the person is (and sometimes, the more detached), the more valuable their opinion, and that is true of any subject, with the exception of subjects like homeopathy where there are no experts because the subject is fake.

You might deny this, but I'm sure it's not how you live your life. If you had a daughter, and you wanted her to learn music and assuming you are sufficiently well-off, you would pay for music lessons, because you believe, deep down and despite your protests to the contrary, that there is such a thing as objectively better music, at least on average. And so it would be for all the arts and indeed all human activity. You can argue that music and storytelling, ok fine. But if you had any ambition yourself to become a storyteller, I am certain that you would read some material on how to write stories, that you would get help to make the product better -- which proves that you believe that there is such a thing as better.

Can we be ever know exactly how good a movie is? Well, can we ever know the exact mass of the electron? No, but we can make a very good approximation, sometimes. Thor 2 has a 50% score among top critics, so that's a decent approximation, and admittedly, it proves I'm probably too harsh on the movie.

You have not been able to provide facts that support your claim. If it was a fact that movie quality is not subjective then you would be able to prove it easily, just as you can prove other scientific facts.

You now go on to saying something different than what you stated before. And no, you can not have a valid opinion about anything. You can however have it with enjoyment of art though, and "good" is a subjective word unless you previously define the parameters for what it is supposed to mean for a given analysis. There are no widely accepted parameters for what constitutes a good movie and that would be absolutely necessary to claim that movie quality isn't subjective.

The music example isn't something I would agree with. I would pay for music lessons because it would be a good method of getting her technically proficient in playing an instrument, or singing. It wouldn't have to do with what kind of music she would ultimately like to play, nor are there any accepted parameters to judge music objectively on a wide basis. There's more technically advanced music, and there's also music that's more popular than other, but that certainly does not mean that either are more rewarding for any given individual.

Anyone that would go by critics to judge what a good movie is would be a person I would think either has low self esteem or is weak willed. I don't think you're being too hard on TDW if you say what you thought about it. You do come across as someone that spends quite a lot of time with things you do not enjoy, which is not my preferred thing to do but it's your choice and it doesn't affect me.

 

[DA_Champion]

Anyone that would go by critics to judge what a good movie is would be a person I would think either has low self esteem or is weak willed. I don't think you're being too hard on TDW if you say what you thought about it. You do come across as someone that spends quite a lot of time with things you do not enjoy, which is not my preferred thing to do but it's your choice and it doesn't affect me.

I enjoy the intellectual activity of figuring out why some things work and why others don't. That is why I spent time deconstructing Thor 2. I tried to do that with Green Lantern as well but I couldn't find any discussion or analytical pieces at the time. There is a discrepancy between what I thought of Thor 2 (it was awful) and the critical consensus (it was mediocre), which lends itself to a puzzle. If you go by the philosophy that all opinions are equally valid and that differences are "subjective"/meaingless (re: boring cultural nihilism) then yes, there's no puzzle. I'm pretty sure that the discrepancy is that I care more about cinematography than most people, and I'm less excited by low-level humour, which gives two knocks against this movie, since it has weak cinematography and a lot of sitcom-style humour. But maybe it's something else.

As for me being "weak-willed", somehow this movie came out earlier in Australia, and when I saw it Thor 2 was tracking at ~85% on RT with ~50 reviews. I did not align with the reviewers. I was confused by how something so bad could be so well-liked, but it turned out that the early rating was a fluke.

Ideally, every widely-watched bad movie would be deconstructed like the Star Wars prequels were, watch this and tell me you wouldn't mind seeing more like it:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

 

[Tony Stark]

I enjoy the intellectual activity of figuring out why some things work and why others don't. That is why I spent time deconstructing Thor 2. I tried to do that with Green Lantern as well but I couldn't find any discussion or analytical pieces at the time. There is a discrepancy between what I thought of Thor 2 (it was awful) and the critical consensus (it was mediocre), which lends itself to a puzzle. If you go by the philosophy that all opinions are equally valid and that differences are "subjective"/meaingless (re: boring cultural nihilism) then yes, there's no puzzle. I'm pretty sure that the discrepancy is that I care more about cinematography than most people, and I'm less excited by low-level humour, which gives two knocks against this movie, since it has weak cinematography and a lot of sitcom-style humour. But maybe it's something else.

As for me being "weak-willed", somehow this movie came out earlier in Australia, and when I saw it Thor 2 was tracking at ~85% on RT with ~50 reviews. I did not align with the reviewers. I was confused by how something so bad could be so well-liked, but it turned out that the early rating was a fluke.

Ideally, every widely-watched bad movie would be deconstructed like the Star Wars prequels were, watch this and tell me you wouldn't mind seeing more like it:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

Your "logic" is so full of holes, I don't know where to begin. I seriously hope you're not as arrogant as your post would suggest.

 

[Mjölnir]

I enjoy the intellectual activity of figuring out why some things work and why others don't. That is why I spent time deconstructing Thor 2. I tried to do that with Green Lantern as well but I couldn't find any discussion or analytical pieces at the time. There is a discrepancy between what I thought of Thor 2 (it was awful) and the critical consensus (it was mediocre), which lends itself to a puzzle. If you go by the philosophy that all opinions are equally valid and that differences are "subjective"/meaingless (re: boring cultural nihilism) then yes, there's no puzzle. I'm pretty sure that the discrepancy is that I care more about cinematography than most people, and I'm less excited by low-level humour, which gives two knocks against this movie, since it has weak cinematography and a lot of sitcom-style humour. But maybe it's something else.

As for me being "weak-willed", somehow this movie came out earlier in Australia, and when I saw it Thor 2 was tracking at ~85% on RT with ~50 reviews. I did not align with the reviewers. I was confused by how something so bad could be so well-liked, but it turned out that the early rating was a fluke.

Ideally, every widely-watched bad movie would be deconstructed like the Star Wars prequels were, watch this and tell me you wouldn't mind seeing more like it:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

That activity is done through looking at why things didn't work for some people and why it did for others. It's takes more ability to do that than to assume something so simplistic that there's one right answer and trying to find it.

TDW is very high on crowd reviews in context of the current superhero wave on RT so it's clearly working for some, if we are to look at reception with different groups. It's basically on par with the best received X-Men film (First Class, where it has a couple percent lower score but higher rating) and is only behind Iron Man, the Batman trilogy and The Avengers.

I'm not so sure you going the "pick and choose" route when to listen to critics makes you come off any better. Even when it's as low as 50% on top critics you disagree with half of them since it means that half liked the film and agreeing with an average can mean that you don't agree with anyone.

And I'm not going to watch anything from Confused Matthew again (although I have seen those SW vids). I'm not even going to bother going into what's bad about him as he's not worth that time (that I agree about some points isn't relevant to that).

 

[daveswb]

Please take a moment and check out my podcast's review of Thor The Dark World here: http://superherospeak.com/wp/30-the-dork-world/

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks all!

 

[mkilban2]

It's weird seeing all this negativity from some people of the movie. I was in love with it, I laughed, I nearly cried, I enjoyed the action, the characters, the story, the repercussions of the MCU going forward. My only gripes were how Malekith was defeated, but I understand it within the story. I really enjoyed this flick.

 

[T"Challa]

It's weird seeing all this negativity from some people of the movie. I was in love with it, I laughed, I nearly cried, I enjoyed the action, the characters, the story, the repercussions of the MCU going forward. My only gripes were how Malekith was defeated, but I understand it within the story. I really enjoyed this flick.

eh, i've learned not to bother anymore. There's good criticism of course and no movie is perfect but for some reason these films have a heavy online presence that dives into hyperbole waaay to often. Everything is nit picked to death, and heavy biases are at play. When i read some of these posts, its almost as though people have just forgotten how to sit back and enjoy a movie.

 

[Wolverine's Run]

eh, i've learned not to bother anymore. There's good criticism of course and no movie is perfect but for some reason these films have a heavy online presence that dives into hyperbole waaay to often. Everything is nit picked to death, and heavy biases are at play. When i read some of these posts, its almost as though people have just forgotten how to sit back and enjoy a movie.

Amen

 

[mkilban2]

eh, i've learned not to bother anymore. There's good criticism of course and no movie is perfect but for some reason these films have a heavy online presence that dives into hyperbole waaay to often. Everything is nit picked to death, and heavy biases are at play. When i read some of these posts, its almost as though people have just forgotten how to sit back and enjoy a movie.

Yep I have yet to dislike a MCU film or TV. I take what they give me and go in with no prior or built up in my head expectations.

 

[cherokeesam]

eh, i've learned not to bother anymore. There's good criticism of course and no movie is perfect but for some reason these films have a heavy online presence that dives into hyperbole waaay to often. Everything is nit picked to death, and heavy biases are at play. When i read some of these posts, its almost as though people have just forgotten how to sit back and enjoy a movie.

Or: maybe they just didn't enjoy the film.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp, but not everybody enjoys every film they've ever seen. That dislike doesn't have to have some deeper, sinister conspiracy or bias or hyperbole behind it.

Maybe they just didn't enjoy the film.

 

[warriorking]

Thankfully they are in the minority...

 

[Feenix]

Or: maybe they just didn't enjoy the film.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp, but not everybody enjoys every film they've ever seen. That dislike doesn't have to have some deeper, sinister conspiracy or bias or hyperbole behind it.

Maybe they just didn't enjoy the film.

Normally I would agree, but the people who seem to really dislike this movie go into such ridiculous detail as to why. It would seem that they went into it with preconceived notions and nothing would change their mind.

 

[cherokeesam]

Normally I would agree, but the people who seem to really dislike this movie go into such ridiculous detail as to why. It would seem that they went into it with preconceived notions and nothing would change their mind.

There's certainly people like that who go into a movie *wanting* it to fail; those people fail to recognize the irony in giving financial support to a movie they (want to) hate.

Otherwise, it's pretty safe to assume that the overwhelming majority of people who choose to donate their money and time to going to a theater to watch a film *want* to get their money's worth. Those that feel they didn't, then, certainly become pretty vocal and feel justified in feeling like they got sold damaged goods, or a product that didn't deliver as advertised.

 

[Just_Human]

I just watched it


Finally !!!!! lol


Overall, pretty good movie; decided not to watch it in 3D because I'm anti-3D.

As usual Loki was great, except in a few sequences where he was too goofy

Good action scenes, good humor (Selvig scenes, Loki reading a book while prisoners were fighting guards)

Loved the pretty boy Cameo as well, and Loki telling Thor "Now you see me" (in Thor and Avengers, he fooled him with his projection).

Renee Russo was great by the way

We saw more of Agard, Heimdall and we finally got to see Ygdrasyl

Now I'm left wondering if Loki killed Odin .... and Odil told Thor " we are not Gods; we live and die " ... kinda foreshadowing

As for the climax, I'm a bit disappointed with how easily Thor defeated Malekith.

But overall, very enjoyable movie.


NOW I can finally watch last week's episode of AOS t:

 

[Herolee10]

Well my biggest issue with this film is just that I feel like it could have easily been so much better than it is now. I mean I still think of it as a good and enjoyable film, but I feel like there were so many missed opportunities that could have easily been explored if the filmmakers had taken the time to do so.

The film should have easily had at least 15-20 extra minutes given how many characters were involved. To this day, it escapes my mind on how the likes of Darcy and her freaking intern got more exposure than the likes of Sif and the Warriors Three.

The third act really suffers from the poorly placed comedic elements imho, and the dramatic moments aren’t given nearly as much time to dwell over as they should be. And it’s really saying something when more people are talking about on how much Loki stole the spotlight (again) over Thor, who I feel wasn’t given as much interesting stuff like Loki was given in terms of material to work with.

 

[Snow Queen]

Pros:
-Every moment Loki is on screen is pure gold and Hiddleston is at his best
-Hemsworth was great
-Love the ending, though I predicted it after the guard told Odin
-The funeral is one of the best scenes in any MCU movie
-Great production design and CGI
-Most of the humour was pretty good
-The prison break was fantastic
-Fantastic cameo
-Loved Sif every moment she was there, despite being underused

Cons:
-A little too much humour, especially in the third act
-Far too much Darcy, again, especially in the third act
-Ian is unnecessary
-Malekith was a really weak villain and needed more development
-The first act didn't quite click with me
-Would have liked some more Sif
-Didn't like the mid credits scene
-The scene at the end of the credits should have been before the credits.

The biggest problem for me was that it had a lot of potential that I just didn't feel it reached. Overall though, I liked it quite a bit. 8/10

 

[Loki882]

eh, i've learned not to bother anymore. There's good criticism of course and no movie is perfect but for some reason these films have a heavy online presence that dives into hyperbole waaay to often. Everything is nit picked to death, and heavy biases are at play. When i read some of these posts, its almost as though people have just forgotten how to sit back and enjoy a movie.

Wanting Sif and the Warriors 3 to get SOMETHING interesting to do and some decent screentime, especially with a more Asgard-centric movie, isn't a nitpick. That was a complaint from the first film and they did nothing to fix it here.
Wanting the Thor/Jane relationship, which is allegedly at the heart of this film, to get some more development and not come off like a schoolyard crush, isn't a nitpick. It's a fundamental flaw with a MAJOR part of the film.
Wanting the villain to be at least somewhat interesting isn't a nitpick. A hero is only as good as their villain.
Wanting basic plot points/character motivation adequately explained isn't a nitpick, it's basic storytelling.
Wanting more character interactions and actual development/arcs instead of just a series of action scenes strung together with the barest minimum of a plot isn't a nitpick.

Oh, and making the argument that people are somehow biased just because they have different opinion than you and keeping a straight face is both laughable and does nothing to help your argument. A major reason that I've seen as to why some people are disappointed with this film is that it had the potential to be great and Marvel hype it up to be this epic and deeply personal story, and it was none of those thing. The squandered potential is what upsets a lot of people. The pieces were all their for it to be fantastic, but the execution merely made it ok.

 

[Feenix]

Wanting Sif and the Warriors 3 to get SOMETHING interesting to do and some decent screentime, especially with a more Asgard-centric movie, isn't a nitpick. That was a complaint from the first film and they did nothing to fix it here.
Wanting the Thor/Jane relationship, which is allegedly at the heart of this film, to get some more development and not come off like a schoolyard crush, isn't a nitpick. It's a fundamental flaw with a MAJOR part of the film.
Wanting the villain to be at least somewhat interesting isn't a nitpick. A hero is only as good as their villain.
Wanting basic plot points/character motivation adequately explained isn't a nitpick, it's basic storytelling.
Wanting more character interactions and actual development/arcs instead of just a series of action scenes strung together with the barest minimum of a plot isn't a nitpick.

Oh, and making the argument that people are somehow biased just because they have different opinion than you and keeping a straight face is both laughable and does nothing to help your argument. A major reason that I've seen as to why some people are disappointed with this film is that it had the potential to be great and Marvel hype it up to be this epic and deeply personal story, and it was none of those thing. The squandered potential is what upsets a lot of people. The pieces were all their for it to be fantastic, but the execution merely made it ok.

Funny, I don't remember your name coming up in T'Challa's post. Maybe he wasn't referring to you (or your "arugments") at all?

The first Thor had much more of the schoolyard crush (he fell in love with Jane after 3 days) than this one. Their relationship developed more in T:TDW than it ever did in Thor 1.

Your arguments about Malekith fall short. We've already witnessed this.

T'Challa wasn't saying that everyone is biased (reading carefully helps, doesn't it?), he was saying that there is good criticism and then there is finding flaws where flaws don't exist. Many people here were complaining about the movie before they even saw it and then complained about the movie after they saw it. Like they weren't biased at all, please

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Funny, I don't remember your name coming up in T'Challa's post. Maybe he wasn't referring to you (or your "arugments") at all?

The first Thor had much more of the schoolyard crush (he fell in love with Jane after 3 days) than this one. Their relationship developed more in T:TDW than it ever did in Thor 1.

Your arguments about Malekith fall short. We've already witnessed this.

T'Challa wasn't saying that everyone is biased (reading carefully helps, doesn't it?), he was saying that there is good criticism and then there is finding flaws where flaws don't exist. Many people here were complaining about the movie before they even saw it and then complained about the movie after they saw it. Like they weren't biased at all, please

I know you didnt mention my name, but I was one of those people who complained about some things before seeing it, mainly the run-time. I thought it was too short to do the movie justice, and this turned out to be correct, the movie WAS too short and needed more screen-time to flesh things out.

This isnt me being biased, I am a Marvel fan, I like DC as well, but I have no bias, I want all comic book movies to be amazing and successful, and if it came down to a choice it would Marvel all the way. I am a huge fan of the 1st movie, its my favourite phase 1 movie, and this had the potential to be a lot better, but IMO was actually worse. A lot of people just feel this movie didnt reach its potential and so that is disappointing to me and a lot of other people who feel the same way. Again no bias, just disappointment that his movie could have been so much better yet it seems they werent interesting in making it so.

 

[T"Challa]

Funny, I don't remember your name coming up in T'Challa's post. Maybe he wasn't referring to you (or your "arugments") at all?

The first Thor had much more of the schoolyard crush (he fell in love with Jane after 3 days) than this one. Their relationship developed more in T:TDW than it ever did in Thor 1.

Your arguments about Malekith fall short. We've already witnessed this.

T'Challa wasn't saying that everyone is biased (reading carefully helps, doesn't it?), he was saying that there is good criticism and then there is finding flaws where flaws don't exist. Many people here were complaining about the movie before they even saw it and then complained about the movie after they saw it. Like they weren't biased at all, please

 

[The Ironstar]

Actually yes, Hitler and Stalin had historically-driven motivations. Just knowing that they're "evil" does not inform how they came to power, who supported them and why, why they had the success level they did in their plans, and why and where they ultimately failed and succeeded.

Here's two versions of history circa 1941:

1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbour because they are evil cowards.
2) Japan had no internal oil supplies, the US was refusing requests to negotiate, and they needed to acquire some pacific territories to acquire oil. So they bombed Pearl Harbour as an (ultimately failed) attempt to buy enough time to consolidate the pacific.

me know which version you find more interesting, the relatively trivialised description, or the motivation-driven explanation.

Both,depending how the story is written and real life going by a person actions.

 

[gildedmuse]

You know, it's so strange. Every person I saw it with, or with whom I spoke to in real life, absolutely adored Darcy, her intern, and the Earth parts in general (except, strangely, Jane... My mom and dad both didn't take to Jane). I know that the Earth scenes helped a few of my friends/relative who only saw Avengers before coming to see TDW which still seems like an odd choice to me, but then I'm one of those people who can't read book series out of order.

Even the ones who did see Thor and so didn't "need" the Earth scenes are much to understand the movie really enjoyed the Earth characters like Selvig, Darcy, and, yes, even Ian (also randomly, my dad really liked Jane's dinner date). Plenty of them showed no real interest in the Warrior's three even when I prodded them about the characters, and I can sort of get why. Plenty of them were like my mom or best friend: they saw these movies because they like the other Marvel films, but they are not big on the whole heavy sci-fi/fantasy influence. It seems weird, yeah, especially when you consider that my mom is quite taken with Thor and - just like a good fangirl - utterly adores Loki, but the scenes where you have magic laser shooting vikings fighting of dark matter space elves? She could have easily done without it being quite so "like they decided they wanted to make Lord Of The Rings Verses Star Wars" as she explained it.

Yet when I come on here you would think the that Darcy was added into the script despite universal upset and anger over her appearance in the first Thor. It seems really very strange to me that opinions would be so incredible different. It's not as though my friend base is nerd free. Hell, half of them I meet during my Harry Potter phase! So how is it that in real life everyone I know is a Darcy fan, but online she is a pariah?

 

[The Ironstar]

Even the ones who did see Thor and so didn't "need" the Earth scenes are much to understand the movie really enjoyed the Earth characters like Selvig, Darcy, and, yes, even Ian (also randomly, my dad really liked Jane's dinner date). Plenty of them showed no real interest in the Warrior's three even when I prodded them about the characters, and I can sort of get why. Plenty of them were like my mom or best friend: they saw these movies because they like the other Marvel films, but they are not big on the whole heavy sci-fi/fantasy influence. It seems weird, yeah, especially when you consider that my mom is quite taken with Thor and - just like a good fangirl - utterly adores Loki, but the scenes where you have magic laser shooting vikings fighting of dark matter space elves? She could have easily done without it being quite so "like they decided they wanted to make Lord Of The Rings Verses Star Wars" as she explained it.

"Lord Of The Rings Verses Star Wars" It's funny because JKK Asgard was like that originally.

 

[DigificWriter]

Prior to the release of The Avengers, the first Thor was my favorite MCU film hands-down, so The Dark World had a lot to live up to, and I'm pleased to say that it did exactly that.

The plot was very easy to follow from beginning to end, and allowed people who might not have seen previous movies to figure out what had previously happened without beating them over the head with exposition.

The characters were also spot-on, with Hiddleston's Loki once again stealing the show, although the other characters also got their fair share of 'airplay'. I particularly liked that Selvig went slightly nuts from being possessed by Loki, because it allowed Jane to come into the 'forefront' after having been somewhat 'overshadowed' in the first movie despite being the female lead. I also liked that they used Jane as the 'macguffin' in the movie for this same reason.

I also really liked Malkieth as a villain, not just because I love Fantasy stories, but also because he didn't feel like a 'step down', threat-wise, from Loki.

The only nitpicks I have are that I would've liked to have seen an explanation as to what happened to the real Odin, and an explanation for the mid-credits scene (the one with Sif and Ray Stevenson's character), but those are minor, and I'm giving the movie a 10.

 

[gildedmuse]

"Lord Of The Rings Verses Star Wars" It's funny because JKK Asgard was like that originally.

Yeah, and it was so weird because I would have never imagined she would have picked up on those type of references. I mean, not just because she's my mom, but neither of those seem like her kind of thing. My dad doesn't even like Star Wars!