Is Thor "Too Difficult" A Character To Do Well?

[Bert]

I *wish* it couldn't be denied, but outside of Thor and Loki, Chris and Tom can't generate any box office buzz at all. The Deep Blue Sea? Midnight In Paris? War Horse? The Cabin in the Woods? Red Dawn? Rush? Check the numbers. Nobody's rushing (pun) out to see Chris Hemsworth or Tom Hiddleston on simply a name basis. Even the big box office for Snow White and the Huntsman is far more likely to be attributable to K-Stew's tweenie fanbase rather than Hem's.

LoL! Midnight in Paris a Tom Hiddleston film? No its a Woody Allen film first and foremost, starring Owen Wilson... Hiddleston is not even in it all that much. Good movie though, I really enjoyed it.

I like how you admit that in the case of Snow White and the Huntsman, its definitely not a Chris Hemsworth movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

Also, before The Avengers made RDJ the undisputed title holder, Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie were arguably the two biggest names in Hollywood in 2010. Yet, The Tourist utterly bombed. I may be cherry-picking here, but my point is that starpower isn't the only factor when it comes to BO success. Also, considering their subject matter and production budgets, both Rush and Cabin in the Woods performed quite well at the box office. Red Dawn was an absolute clunker, and even a pre-After-Earth Will Smith wouldn't have saved that one.

Absolutely, a bad film, is a bad film, and plenty of A-list actors have been in bad films.

To say that Hemsworth and Hiddleston haven't achieved a huge boost in name recognition is denying reality. I'm not going to say they are A-list actors yet, but it was Thor not Star Trek that gave Hemsworth the boost in his career. A lot of people probably don't even realize that Hemsworth was in Star Trek.

 

[Mysteryman]

To be fair, Hemsworth was only in Star Trek for 5 minutes.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Thor is the most difficult character to do right in my opinion ..... and that's due to the nature of the genre mashup it's become in the MCU.

In 2011's "Thor", the character was a little bit more nuanced in that he was a young, impetuous warrior and learning how to become something greater. In T:TDW he was missing that nuance. Keep in mind Marvel doesn't like to get too overly complex with that kind of thing in order to appeal to a broader audience. They gave glimpses of a struggle as he was missing Jane, but it could've used more attention.

 

[Vartha]

Personally I think if you understand a lot of the myths you shouldn't have an issue understanding the MCU version.
There are people who just don't quite grasp the myths, which in the Norse world were basically stories/dramas told around a fire by word of mouth. Kind of reminds me of the old D&D days, only some people made GREAT Dungeon Masters while most sucked at it lol

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Thor needs a LOTR style epic movie. Tour of the 9 realms and their many mysteries.
Take Jane Foster along as their Frodo, acting as an audience expy.

 

[cherokeesam]

Thor needs a LOTR style epic movie. Tour of the 9 realms and their many mysteries.
Take Jane Foster along as their Frodo, acting as an audience expy.

That's what TDW *should* have been. Opportunity missed.

 

[Shikamaru]

I disagree with the magic not being as relatable as science concept. Its an interesting theory but 3 billion dollars of Harry potters movies would kind of put that idea to rest.

Everything has its exceptions. A single to a few exceptions does not override an long ongoing track record of science trumping magic in popularity.

Marvel doesn't clearly define Thors world as a magical one.
They try to have it both ways with the idea that the Asgardians are an advanced race that uses science that looks like magic .

They still lean far more towards the magic world than the science world.

 

[Visualiza]

In a word, nope. Thor & Avengers portrayed him exceptionally. He wasn't necessarily bad in Thor 2, the writing just wasn't there, but Hemsworth gave it what he could.

 

[Mjölnir]

I don't think he's too difficult to do well as he's been good in three movies now. He's probably the hardest MCU character to get like his greatest comic moments though. This is of course in part of that the MCU centers around the Avengers, where everyone has to adapt to fit everyone into the picture. There's a huge difference between the Thor that Aaron is currently writing and the one that I saw in Avengers Assemble, to look at some current comics.

 

[Vartha]

That's what TDW *should* have been. Opportunity missed.

INDEED! That first draft by Protosevich would have been an AWESOME version of that

 

[Mysteryman]

INDEED! That first draft by Protosevich would have been an AWESOME version of that

Probably would have been very expensive though.

 

[Vartha]

Probably would have been very expensive though.

About 300 million they said. This was WAY back when Vaughn was on the film and basically refused to budge on what Protosevich wrote.

 

[AnorexicBatman]

Probably would have been very expensive though.

If only Peter Jackson was a Thor fanboy
Does have have a copy of the Protosevich script?

 

[MarvelFan]

I don't agree with the saying that says: "Thor is not relatable because he's not human or he's invulnerable....

I do not think that for a hero to be relatable is that he has to be a human, or he has to have weaknesses...but i simply think because of what they do, how they overcame such adversity, and after everything that has been through, it makes them grown as character. And Thor here, like DC' Superman, what makes him relatable is not that he is a god or he cannot be seriuosly injured, but of what he do that defines him.

Thor, (for me) is the most relatable Marvel character...
like in Thor 1, how he has grown from a selfish arogant man into a selfless being who willing to make a sacrifice to help the people he cared and loved, the people who have helped him grown. or Like in JMS's arc where Thor doesnt care about his own life whatsoever in order to help Sif. Or how Thor always had an issue with his father, and whatever circumstances or adversity that he has been through, it leads him grown to become a better man, a better king.

To me, that was truly inspiring moment, because everybody in daily life has this kind of journey within themselves, a journey towards redemption to become a better man themselves.

Yes, Thor (and also Superman) can not be seriously injured, but i remembered the line from The Dark World trailer where Malekith said: "your bravery will not ease your pain.."). Maybe you cannot touch his skin, but you can break and injured his HEART.

*sorry i'm not really good at writing or explaining (but i hope everyone's get the point) That's what Thor really is to me, and what makes i love about him, So bottom line, to answer the question of this thread, the answer is No.

 

[fixxxer]

*sorry i'm not really good at writing or explaining (but i hope everyone's get the point) That's what Thor really is to me, and what makes i love about him, So bottom line, to answer the question of this thread, the answer is No.

Message came through loud and clear. Well said.

 

[cherokeesam]

I don't agree with the saying that says: "Thor is not relatable because he's not human or he's invulnerable....

I do not think that for a hero to be relatable is that he has to be a human, or he has to have weaknesses...but i simply think because of what they do, how they overcame such adversity, and after everything that has been through, it makes them grown as character. And Thor here, like DC' Superman, what makes him relatable is not that he is a god or he cannot be seriuosly injured, but of what he do that defines him.

Thor, (for me) is the most relatable Marvel character...
like in Thor 1, how he has grown from a selfish arogant man into a selfless being who willing to make a sacrifice to help the people he cared and loved, the people who have helped him grown. or Like in JMS's arc where Thor doesnt care about his own life whatsoever in order to help Sif. Or how Thor always had an issue with his father, and whatever circumstances or adversity that he has been through, it leads him grown to become a better man, a better king.

To me, that was truly inspiring moment, because everybody in daily life has this kind of journey within themselves, a journey towards redemption to become a better man themselves.

Yes, Thor (and also Superman) can not be seriously injured, but i remembered the line from The Dark World trailer where Malekith said: "your bravery will not ease your pain.."). Maybe you cannot touch his skin, but you can break and injured his HEART.

*sorry i'm not really good at writing or explaining (but i hope everyone's get the point) That's what Thor really is to me, and what makes i love about him, So bottom line, to answer the question of this thread, the answer is No.

I don't find Thor relatable at all, but yeah, I understand and agree wholly with your argument. Thor may be uber, but he still finds his humanity, particularly in Thor 1. In Avengers and TDW.....eh, not so much. Maybe that's why I found him underwritten in those two movies, and found Thor 1 to be the best exploration of the character so far.

 

[DrCosmic]

"Too difficult" is not the issue, but the issue is "more difficult." Because Thor has so few physical problems, and so few social problems on Asgard, it takes more work and creativity and suspension of disbelief to put Thor through the wringer. It might take 3 months to beat out a truly great Thor story, but it only takes 3 days to beat out a great Iron Man story. Thor 1 did this by taking away his powers, which was suitable thematically for an origin story. Avengers did okay, mostly sidelining him, as the comics often do, but he got to wring his hands over dealing with his brother.

Thor the Dark World was more interested in Loki than Thor. The film considered Loki more relatable to the audience, and it showed. They didn't know what to do with Thor, as a person, and as a result, he sort of middled between Earth and Asgard and so on, being bandied about by the whims of others. Truly an uncompelling figure.

Doing him right would have required a lot more location scouting for the nine worlds. It would have required more CGI and prosthetics and design for the creatures of those worlds. There's also the issue that the much better funded Lord of the Rings is a current even competing franchise in the Hobbit. And while you don't want Thor to look like a poor-man's Hobbit, tt would not have taken 300M dollars keep things to Asgard, The Dark World, a revisitation of Niffleheim and perhaps Hogun's world as a nice classical fantasy tavern-filled world, with hinting at others. You can do an adventure movie without actually doing Lord of the Rings. Once you show that Thor's powers are useless to save Jane or kill Kurse who pursues them, you've got something truly awesome. More of Thor, Warriors Three, Sif, prisoner-Loki and Jane, all back and forth interacting with each other. Those were some of the best movments in the movie... maximize those. Leave Darcy and Svelwig on Asgard for comic relief. Have Heimdall babysit them. Hilarity ensues.

And it would have required finding a new way to make Thor vulnerable. They were hinting in the right direction by having Jane travel with him, and her kinda dying or something, with him trying to protect her, but at the same time not being able to, a perfect metaphor for his relationship with Midgard... but then they deflated all that to finish things on Earth, basically removing Thor from the movie emotionally. What might have been interesting is if his major test had involved him becoming temporarily unworthy to wield the hammer. That would have cemented Malekith as a truly awesome dude to corrupt Thor in that way.

Oh well, they were more interested in Loki. Too bad being a great supporting cast member doesn't mean you can take over a movie.

 

[Wildcard]

I don't think so...no, not at all. I used to think Thor wouldn't translate well on screen, but the character works remarkably well. I feel as if both Thor films plus TA have proven Thor can be a great force to see on-screen.

 

[MarvelFan]

I don't find Thor relatable at all, but yeah, I understand and agree wholly with your argument. Thor may be uber, but he still finds his humanity, particularly in Thor 1. In Avengers and TDW.....eh, not so much. Maybe that's why I found him underwritten in those two movies, and found Thor 1 to be the best exploration of the character so far.

It took me long time to reply this...

Given the recent loss of one beloved family member, when watching Thor's journey in The Dark World feels really emotional for me.

If cherokeesam-senpai thinks that Thor isnt relatable at all, I'm not going to argue that ...since each to their own and everyone has entitled to their opinion. But for me...Thor (and the other character from the movie) really gives me strength in the hardest time of my life. When the first Thor came out 3 years ago also the same...bottom line, I'd forever be treasuring and remembering what Thor has brought to inspire me.

*sorry for the chessy post, but it is truly what i feel about Thor, and how he is my number one favorite among Marvel characters*

 

[Spider-Fan]

Honestly, Thor isn't the most difficult. Thor presents certain problems, but so does Captain America, Hulk, and so on. I think Marvel is doing a good job with him, and I expect Thor 3 to be Thor's definitive film when all is said and done (I think it has a better set-up than even TDW had).

In my opinion, the hardest characters are guys like Spawn. Spawn is a character that requires a high budget to his power level and many of the villains he fights. But at same time, you also need to get the TONE right. This is where Spawn's 90s movie failed miserably (that and CGI was a fairly new science back then and the effects look bad). When you have to invest a lot of $$$ into a character, studios want broader appeal because they need to make more money. This is why guys like Spawn, who are generally gritty, dark, violent, etc. end up being toned down. They have to make him more kid-friendly. At least, that is the belief. Many R-rated superheroes can be done on smaller budgets. Guys as powerful as Spawn need REAL money to do properly. I think that is more of a challenge from a filmmaking stand-point than a guy like Thor. Thor can have broader appeal more easily.

 

[Wildcard]

Honestly, Thor isn't the most difficult. Thor presents certain problems, but so does Captain America, Hulk, and so on. I think Marvel is doing a good job with him, and I expect Thor 3 to be Thor's definitive film when all is said and done (I think it has a better set-up than even TDW had).

In my opinion, the hardest characters are guys like Spawn. Spawn is a character that requires a high budget to his power level and many of the villains he fights. But at same time, you also need to get the TONE right. This is where Spawn's 90s movie failed miserably (that and CGI was a fairly new science back then and the effects look bad). When you have to invest a lot of $$$ into a character, studios want broader appeal because they need to make more money. This is why guys like Spawn, who are generally gritty, dark, violent, etc. end up being toned down. They have to make him more kid-friendly. At least, that is the belief. Many R-rated superheroes can be done on smaller budgets. Guys as powerful as Spawn need REAL money to do properly. I think that is more of a challenge from a filmmaking stand-point than a guy like Thor. Thor can have broader appeal more easily.

I kind of disagree. I don't think a guy like Spawn necessarily need a super high budget, just a team of people that are creative. I've seen some amazing effects done in films that don't have incredibly high budgets. I do agree about keeping him dark...with guys like Spawn that's essential.

And I also completely agree with the sentiment about T3. It's going to no doubt be his biggest film (if done right) & will increase his fan-base more.