Man of Steel had a slightly better end battle scene, but the entire world engine fight was filler and should have been cut entirely. Smallville fight, Metropolis fight, then Zod is already MORE than enough.
The end of the Dark World was intentionally muzzled due to Fiege and Taylor not wanting to try and "out-do" The Avengers. But in a struggle where the entire universe is at stake, should have been more epic. The Warriors Three and Sif should have been apart of the battle. The dimensional wormholes were a cool aspect, however.
Frigga's death>>>>>>Pa Kent's death. Pa Kent's death was laughably bad. His entire attitude and character was impractical the entire movie anyways so I didn't care much when the tornado snatched him. But going back for the dog? Just accepting death instead of running away? Just horrible writing. This was the scene where I knew Man of Steel wouldn't live up to hype.
I loved what they did with Frigga though. She actually defeated Malekith which was surprising in itself. And the fallout and emotion Loki displayed was heartbreaking and did wonders for his character. Not to mention the amazing Viking funeral. Wow!
Well her death was quite tragic in a way however I don't think there was enough emotion afterwards. It seemed to just be accepted in the end. Then again maybe that's just because these people are like gods and maybe death is accepted more.
I personally felt more emotion in Pa Kent's death and felt it fit the theme of the film better. Frigga's death just seemed to me like they needed to kill someone off in order for Loki to have redemption and to give some emotional weight to the story (even though imo it failed to do so).
Man of Steel had the greatest live action battle for a CBM ever IMO (Smallville scene) as for the the death of Pa Kent being being stupid or pointless it's really up to the person who sees it, it's not horrible writing per se. it's on of those scenes that can nearly make you emotional, very rare for this kind of movies. think and understand the bigger picture instead of just by looking at it the surface. at least they are not making jokes a minute after someone dies...
Its a shame they didn't do abit more with Malakeith, he really was a bland villain. Thankfully Loki saved the movie. I think the most jarring thing for me was the tonal shift it just didn't have that same feel that the first one had.
I think most people will agree if they did not cast Tom Hiddleston as Loki no one will care much about the movie, even Loki the character. he has like a tweeny twilight type of following. lol
MOS, I immediately forgot about Thor after watching it...
Loki and Thors' chemistry is still the best thing about that franchise and it isnt enough to top Superman, loss feels more substantial in Superman than in Thor as do the stakes....Thor is exceptionally well made but lacks "soul" which I felt MOS had despite all its own issues.
I felt Thor 2 was very comical and no feel of dangers and urgency at all while he was "transported" here and there at the final act. the ending was like cutting-short and terrible. TASM2 is way better that Thor 2. needless to say about MOS.
MOS was so much better than Thor: The Dark Turd that it's silly that this poll even exists. I've been a big fan of nearly all of the Marvel Studios films (even the often-criticized Iron Man sequels), but Thor 2 was flat-out terrible. Bad story, bad acting from everyone other than Hemsworth and Hiddleson, uneven direction, mediocre special effects and the worst comic book villain since Mr. Freeze. I'm hoping that it's just a fluke and future Marvel projects turn out much, much better.
Its a shame they didn't do abit more with Malakeith, he really was a bland villain. Thankfully Loki saved the movie. I think the most jarring thing for me was the tonal shift it just didn't have that same feel that the first one had.
Agreed. It's one of the reasons why I hate the Iron Man sequels. The first had an interesting grounded take on technology while still being funny in small dosages. The second and third just went overboard with the humour and pretty much said "**** all" to the grounded and real take on Iron Man. Same goes for Thor and Thor II as you said. Even with Hiddleston's great interpretation of Loki, the movie felt very forgettable and had no stakes.
Hey Super-fans, Thor TDW came out down here in NZ yesterday,
and I went to see it. Have to say it's Marvel's best film this year (by quite a bit).
I'm still trying to work out an in depth analysis comparing the
two films,
Here's my review of Thor TDW (enormous spoilers)
first up, this is just IMO, I'm an unashamed DC fan (MOS was my #1
film this year) and before this film wasn't the biggest fan of Thor. However, Marvel really kicked it up a notch with this one, a bazillion times better than Amazing Spiderman, and actually at least as good as Avengers, if not slightly better.
The awesome
1) Visuals, very, very, very good. Sometimes CGI worlds are obviously so fantastical that they can't be real ( something I notice about the Hobbit, and I was in that as an extra) but recently films like Oblivion, Man of Steel, and now Thor TDW have made completely fantastical environments
look actually believable.
I still don't like the pipe-organ look of Odin's palace, but the scenery looks great, particularly the palace interiors, where some intense fighting takes place.
This is especially so during the final Thor/Malekith fight, when hopping between realms.
2) Character development: Loki. Wow. Hiddleston hit one out of the park. He was superb as Loki, who's twisted, but has such a sharp wit and charm that he's tremendous fun to watch. We see that even the bitter, jealous Loki has someone he cares for.
Probably the best scenes are the cell scenes and his reaction to Frigga's death. Well written, and superbly acted, the film is almost as much Loki's as it is Thor's.
All in all, Thor and Loki's relationship is significantly developed by this film, Hemsworth does some solid work, but the stand-out performer is Hiddleston.
The very final scene of the movie leaves us with a host of questions, and questions we want answered. Ending with that image of a smirking Loki
on the throne, very well played indeed.
3) Frigga: appears in very little of the movie, pretty much to advance the plot, but Rene Russo does a great job with almost nothing.
Her Viking funeral scene was also well done.
4) Odin: The thing about truly great actors is that you forget they are who they are, and just think of them in the role. Hopkins is a short, plain -looking, dumpy man, yet fills the role of All-father brilliantly. IN this film he's very kingly, tough, uncompromising. You believe he's a king amongst the God-like Asgardians. Hemsworth is noticeably awed in his presence.
5) Pacing and Tone: Nice, very nice. The light moments and dark moments are set apart perfectly, so that neither seems out of place.
The only time the pace drags is after the prologue, up to where Jane
finds the Aether.
The good
1) Character development Thor: pretty good, we see a more serious side of Thor. He's continued along the humility path he started down in Thor (first movie). Hemsworth looks the part and while occasionally clunky, his Thor is generally likeable.
2) Character development Selvig, gets some great comic scenes. Skaarsgard does a great job with the material he's given.
3) Character development The warriors three, (Fandrall, Hogun, Volstaag)
Again, they don't get much to work with, but the bits they're in, they're a lot more interesting (not just comic relief, like the first film). Zachary Levi
was good as Fandrall (filling in for the forgettable other guy), and Ray Stevenson is always a laugh.
I'd add Sif, but she's woefully underused.
4) The Action: The fight scenes are pretty good, not as stylized or frantic as Avengers, but still enjoyable. The film has a very high body count (not as high as MOS, but a lot of Asgardians don't make it) as such
you feel there's a real threat.
Also, the assault on Asgard has a somewhat "Star Wars" feel to it, which ordinarily would seem weird in a Thor movie, but works in this one.
A really brilliant action scene is a mixture of audacity, skilfulness and pacing, this film has some good fights, but none that made my jaw drop.
(by contrast, the Hong Kong Kaiju battle-scene in Pacific Rim, made me cheer).
I did like the way that Asgardian "magic" had a more technological feel to it, as I said, sort of a Star Wars feel - but original Star Wars (so very cool ).
5) The other Villains: Christopher Eccleston is predictably menacing as Malekith, but isn't given enough to work with, as probably 2/3 of his lines are in Elvish. He certainly looks scary and radiates evil, and I suppose he has to be a contrast to the joyful nastiness of Loki, but I think he could have had more dialogue to establish his motivations - he's just relentlessly
evil, and that's about it. A good performance but not a lot to work with.
Probably his only really engaging interaction with the other actors was the scene in which he and Kurse confront Frigga.
On that note, Kurse is pretty nasty, but after his transformation doesn't really do much acting, just growling really.
6) Music: hits a high point at Frigga's funeral, and otherwise frames the
story nicely. Possibly could emphasize the main character's motif a bit more, and have stronger overall motifs for the Dark Elves, and certainly
Odin and Loki deserve their own. But, overall, nicely done.
The reasonable
Natalie Portman. She's one of the greatest American Actresses of her generation. In this role, she's just really damsel in distress and doesn't do much with it. Less boring than Padme (from those dreadful Star Wars Prequels), but not a heroine that we really feel much for.
Yes, it's my bias, but she has none of the pluck, or smarts of Amy Adams' Lois lane. Portman does well with what she's given, I suspect its more of a writing issue, but all in all, not her best work.
The romance: a little unengaging, if there was a word for it. Not exactly forced, but it ain't Princess Leia/Han Solo or even Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst (or even the tension of Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman) if we're going to look at super-hero/fantasy genre romance.
Admittedly, the very end post credits scene where Thor does come back to Jane is a good moment, but all in all they're not going to be one of the
great on-screen couples. Having said all that, it works within the context of the film, you believe these people could love each other, but you aren't dying to see how/if things work out for them.
The unsatisfactory.
Kat Dennings, only because she's exactly the same in everything she does. Sarcastic, midly annoying and relentlessly playing the cute card.
She has the acting range of a cereal box - I suppose she does what she needs to do in this film, but the plot would have sailed along without her.
The post credits scene with the Collector. WTF ? I know that Marvel
has to set up other films, but Del Toro was simply awful - the Collector
in the comics, is an elder of the universe, a being of great and mysterious power. Del Toro's character was more like a hairstylist who runs a pawn-shop part time. It was utter crap.
IN CONCLUSION: For some comparison, I gave MOS a 9/10 but again
I'm an unashamed Superman fan. Pacific Rim gets an 8.5/10, as an
incredibly satisfying robot smashfest (not going to win any best actor
Oscars, but who cares ?) . For more comparisons, The first Matrix movie 9/10, The Dark Knight 9/10, Inception 9/10, the Avengers 8/10, X-Men first class 7.5/10, Lord of the Rings: return of the King 9/10.
basically, a 8/10 for me is a movie you walk out of feeling that you got
every cent of your money's worth, truly satisfying. a 9/10 is a movie that you don't want to end, and has moments you want to jump to your feet and yell "**** YEAH !" (haven't seen a 10/10 yet)
Okay, so on to Thor, 8/10. A very solid and enjoyable movie
That's saying a lot, as I'm not a Thor fan.
Before this film I didn't really care that much about Thor, and back in the 80's I actually read the old Walt Simonson stories that were the basis of this film. Those were pretty engaging (and visually mesmerising, because of Simonson's art), but otherwise I've always found Thor a bit boring....until now. I'm not quite a Thor-fan yet, but if the next Thor
film is as good as this one, then I might be.
I really enjoyed TDW. If you're a Thor fan, you'll simply love it, if you
liked Avengers or Marvel in general you're going to get your money's worth. A much greater scale than the first Thor, and much more enjoyable.
Trust me Marvel-maniacs, if you liked Thor (2011) and the Avengers,
you're going to love this movie. Like I said I'm not really a fan, and I thought it was Marvel's best outing in a long time (I enjoyed it more than
Avengers).
In TDW the stakes are higher, the visuals are stunning, the scheme is grander and best of all LOKI......Loki makes the film, stealing every scene he's in. Hiddleston was born to play the role, he's so much fun to watch.
If you liked Loki in the previous films, you're going to love what he gets up to in TDW, we see a much more complete character, rather than just the
jealous brother - Cain to Thor's Abel.
Okay, enough. So Thor (2011) was fun, (loved the Destroyer, and ****, they needed him in this movie !), but this one is a big step up.
Hope you all enjoy it as much as I did.
And then There's MOS. Like I said in the TDW review above, 9/10, mostly because I felt a personal connection to Superman, as a beloved character from my childhood - but also because he was a much more "human" character than Thor.
MOS is a darker film than TDW, and much more personal, it's about a man's quest to find himself.
So here's my comparisons, which include acting, visuals, romance and action.
Henry Cavill vs Chris Hemsworth = Slight edge to Cavill, Hemsworth is enjoyable as Thor, and looks the part. Cavill's Clark Kent is much more troubled, had a lot less dialogue to work with, and thus has to rely on expressions more, all up Clark is a slightly better written character
with a more relatable story (despite his great powers, he struggles with
issues that every person struggles with, in terms of coming to terms
with his place in the world).
Odin vs Jor El (Anthony Hopkins vs Rusell Crowe) = tie, two of the absolute cinema greats, both as the wise father role, possibly slight edge to Jor-El for kicking more ash (without superpowers, on Krypton)
Frigga vs Martha Kent (Rene Russo vs Diane Lane) = edge to Ma Kent. Russo does a great job, with a small (but highly significant ) role, but Ma Kent does a lot more, she's the rock of Clark's world, and helps us connect to his character.
Malekith v General Zod= hmmmm.... both are pretty apocalyptic characters with the single-minded destruction of the current world (and the restoration of their own world). Zod has a bit more dialogue to work with, and is a little easier to relate to, in terms of his obsession.
Eccleston does a great job with very little dialogue, and under a lot of make-up -the fact that he does so much with so little is a testament to his talents.
So edge to Zod, but mostly because Malekith has much less dialogue to work through.
NOTE: General Zod v Loki = not even close. Loki by a mile, Hiddleston is the stand-out performer in TDW, he's a better developed and more enjoyable character to watch.
Jane Foster vs Lois Lane ( Nat Portman v Amy Adams)= when I first encountered Adams (in previous films) didn't really like her as an actress, whereas Portman was a great talent from her very first film. The Fighter, changed my mind about Adams, and while she and Portman both have damsel in distress roles, Adams is lot pluckier and more interesting. Usually I can't stand Lois Lane, but Adams made her an enjoyable character. Portman's Foster is good, but nothing special. Edge = Lois Lane / Adams !
romance= Thor and Jane, Clark and Lois. personally, I didn't feel like Hemsworth and Portman had much on-screen chemistry, whereas Cavill and Adams did. There's a lot less said between Clark and Lois, but what's said is more believable. Edge = Lois and Clark.
Krypton vs Asgard = Asgard has a real Star wars feel to it, (read the above review), and the sequences there are visually impressive. But Asgard is all sunshine, whereas Krypton is a dying world.
Both are equally compelling, and believable....something I never felt about the Star Wars prequels (those environments always looked a bit too fantastical). In fact, the visuals in Thor are as good as MOS, so tie.
Action= hmmmmm....tricky. The final show-down, in terms of scale is bigger in MOS (in respect of stuff being destroyed on Earth), however Thor TDW threatens the 9 realms.... However, the destruction in MOS
is just unparalleled, both from the Gravity beam and from the final Zod vs Supes punch-up.
The fight scenes in Thor TDW are good, but a bit chaotic, whereas MOS
is again, a bit clearer in terms of what's going on, but much more destructive.
Despite what many have said, I loved the Smallville fight scene, best superbeing on superbeing fight scene to date.
Edge: MOS.
Overall grades: Don't get me wrong, Thor TDW is an enjoyable watch
and the best thing Marvel's done this Year (waaayyy better than Amazing Spider Man) and Hiddleston is superb. I have never been a Thor fan, but after this film I've grown to like the character and his world a lot more.
8/10
MOS, slightly better performances (except of course Hiddleston, he could carry a Loki movie after this), and that I felt a greater connection to the character and his personal struggles (and of course, I am biased as having been a Superman fan since childhood). While Thor TDW was a very good movie, MOS was a great one. 9/10
Enough from me, weigh in chaps, what do y'all think ?
Good question. The underlying issue is superman's vulnerability to magic,
but putting that aside, Kurse is shown to be physically stronger and
more injury resistant to Thor.
Given during the final battle with Zod, Superman smashed through several skyscrapers and then a satellite and then re-entered earth's atmosphere and smashed into a train station (although he and Zod must have substantially slowed their descent, otherwise that impact alone would have levelled all of Metropolis) without so much as a scratch, I would say the edge definitely goes to Superman. I'm trying to think of the biggest thing Supes lifts. He struggles to stop the escape pod crashing into Earth's atmosphere (but then again if you add it's acceleration, probably about mach 24, or about 20,000 miles an hour which would dramatically
increase its mass). He struggles to lift the oil rig tower, but the giant throws a locomotive at him (in a subtle joke, because we all know Supes is more powerful than a what...) so we can assume Clark is just as strong.
Okay, sorry I got carried away, after all that definitely edge to Superman.
The issue I think in a fist fight would be that Mjolnir would definitely hurt Supes (but then he'd probably be worthy enough to lift it), and thor's lighting and weather powers would be a problem.
However, in terms of raw power, and strength, big Edge to Superman.
Some of the shots Supes took from Zod, would have certainly killed Thor....by comparison, Thor actually bleeds in this film.
Personally, I have always thought Supes' main advantage would be speed.
Thor is very strong and tough, but Supes can move nearly as fast as the Flash, he'd have hit Thor about 100 times before the Asgardian had seen him move.
Having said that, Supes isn't a terribly aggressive fighter, he usually waits to get hit, before hitting someone else -which would give Thor a bit of an edge.
If you liked Thor, and enjoyed MOS, you'll enjoy TDW, visually spectacular and enjoyable (but don't expect Shakespeare or Jane Austen in terms of the drama).
Thanks for the reply dude ! Following on from this thread, where's the best place for me to start a Superman vs Thor, who would win, thread,
so I can get the most replies and generate the most fierce debate
(especially from Thor fans) ? Any thoughts ?
Okay, you all saw this coming.
If there is a topic identical to this one please let me know and I would take this down, I had a look and couldn't find any.
Topics:
1. Who would win in a fight between these two?
2. Who's stronger?
3. Who's more powerful?
4. Which actor did it better?
You could add more topics if you wish. Now, DEBATE.
1.thor. just like in comics, people are once again undermining thor. Mjlinor in movie is just as fast prolly faster than supes. One hit will knock him on his ash just like it did to hulk. You guys also don't realize his strength. Hulk punch stopped a alien whale thing armored heavily bigger than a frikkin building and hurtling at him faster than cars go on the freeway. He stopped it dead cold. Thor blocked that punch. Loki caught an arrow at him from the side using only his peripheral vision. Also, proffessional archers shoot at arrows at 200 mph.hawkeye is beyond proffessional. I mention that because thor is superior to loki in all physical aspects including reflexes and speed. Loki has even aknowledged that. dont be fooled so easily in thinking right from the gate thor will be blitzed. If you analyze the feats, movie thor is an absolute beast. One blast of lightning will bring him to his knees. Not to mention mjlnor was obliterating frost giants, going through walls/ buildings without slowing down whatsoever, and took down a heavily armored space whale by using mjlnor to drive a sharp peice of of metal into it in a naik like fashion. Btw, not 2hits, not 3, one hit. if anyone has a qualm with this tell me.
2. I've already mentioned feats that put thor at least on clarks level. Crashing zod through a power plant tower and some buildings is nice, but thor blocked an enraged hulks punch, leveled trees just from the vibration shock of him hitting caps sheild, and took down an alien whale with armor down in one blow. Most of supes power feats are from flying. All of thors strength feats are on the ground.
3. Not even a question. Thor has magical lighting that took down 2 space whales with one bolt, and has mjlnor which I've already explained is insanely powerful.
4. Chris henson was absolutely fantabulous. He portrayed thors voice, manerrisms, and ego/personality perfectly. I believe chris henson is the better actor considering he was spot on for the role of an asgardian whereas the actor for clark did a good job portraying someone who is just like a regular human.
Overall thor, but I took time to recall his feats and analyze them and not just say him because I like him more because since I'm the only one to say thor all 4 I thought you guys would at least deserve an actual answer.
First off, speed is out of the question really, superman didnt speedblits one person, so who's to say he is going to suddenly want to do it to thor, and if he does choose to slug it out (which he was shown to do) thor is going to stomp him, his fight between iron man proves that
Secondly, thor has more options of attack, he has lightning, hurricanes, which are all magic, so superman will be as durable as a human to it, and it killed leviathens like they were nothing
Thirdly, thor has better reaction feats, like when he fought hulk, he danced around him, and when he fought ironman, he also swatted away destroyers beams like they were fodder, goodbye heat vision, and anyway, his lightning seems stronger than supes lightning
Fourthly, thors hammer strikes are argueably too hard for supes to handle, destroying whole landscapes with one blow, one shotting a leviathen, one shotting a monster that was gigantic in ice giant land, spinning his hammer to block attack and to fling attacks, throwing mjolnir hard enough to go through about 7 ice giants and continue going, only to be called back, and he is not slow, he travelled the ice giants whole land in about 5 seconds, not that supes would speed blits anyway, though thor's reactions prove he could tag supes anyway thor also used and area of attack lightning attack to kill like 15 chituari warriers surrounding widow and hawkeye and cap
4. Which actor did it better?
Loved both, tie
And i haven't seen thor 2, yet, i will in about 7 hours, then the real debate begins
I just seen thor 2 by the way and i think i rate it on the same level as MOS.
Both about 8/10 i think.
Hard to say for now.
I like them about the same,but this could change later but for now i like them the same.
I will be watching them both again and again in the future.
Thor: The Dark World is such an average film. Inferior to the first one.
Man of Steel is a visual treat (minus the HORRIBLE zoom cam). Whilst I think some of the dialog and the 'I think I really like/love you after only seeing you for minutes' with Lois irked me, it was just a good action film. It had some epic action it that surpassed the Avengers.
Yeah, there's another thread for Man of Steel Superman vs Movie Thor.
This is more about which movie you enjoyed more. Unlike a lot of folks,
I really liked Thor TDW, but MOS was my favourite film of 2013, by a long way.
But....
....here are some things to think about if you're really keen on arguing Thor v Superman (movie versions)
1. Who would win in a fight between these two, who's stronger and who's more powerful. Can pretty much answer these all in one go.
- in TDW Thor fights a being close to his own strength level, Kurse, How did that work out for him...... Superman fights Zod, who has the same level of powers, who wins that one ? Superman kills him with his bare hands.
In MOS Superman fights 2 beings close to his own strength, at the same time, sure he gets KO'ed briefly, but then fights them off, and does a lot better than Thor, who mostly does damage to Kurse's fists ...with his face.
Watch Thor v Loki in Avengers, they don't even do much property damage to Stark Tower. Superman v Zod, smashes buildings just from the impacts.
Kurse knocks down Thor with a big rock, after which he pummels Thor. Superman gets hit by a train, thrown from a mile away, by another Kryptonian, and walks away without a scratch.
On the same note, who won Thor v Hulk ? Not Thor.
As far as Mjolnir's speed ? Kurse flicked it away, Hulk caught it. Neither of those characters possess super-speed. Don't think Superman who actually does have super-speed would have much trouble with it.
Thor doesn't display any strength even close to that which Supes displays in MOS (and that includes when he holds up the tower, after which he continues to get stronger).
Some people are suggesting Thor has some kind of super-speed. Why did he have to jog down the road to fight Malekith in TDW ? No super-speed there.
Even if we put aside the obvious Speed and mobility advantage (as in Superman can fly without a magic hammer) to Superman, all in all, I didn't see Thor display any kind of strength or invulnerability that would come close to that which Superman displayed in MOS - particularly after the battering he took at the hands of Kurse. As far as Mjolnir goes, well, it didn't make a decisive difference in the fights with the Hulk or Kurse (it's awesome against beings less powerful than Thor, like the frost giants, or the rock giant in TDW) and I highly doubt it would against Superman.
I think the Avengers Hulk would be a really tough fight for MOS Superman, and Thor wouldn't be easy, but I'm convinced Superman would come out on top.
In the end though, that's still my opinion based on what I saw in the films, so if people want to believe that Thor would win, fair enough - but I can't agree.
4. Which actor did it better?
Now this is up to whoever's watching the film. Chris Hemsworth (don't know who Chris Henson is) did a great job. I'm not a Thor fan - but I liked his version of Thor, which is a great achievement, as I find the character boring, but he made Thor likeable, so very well done there. Again, I'm not really a Thor fan, so I can totally understand if people feel that Chris was the better performer.
Personally, I prefer Superman, and thought Cavill did an amazing job of making him a regular guy, who we can relate to, despite having godlike power. But that's just my opinion.
Thor: The Dark World is such an average film. Inferior to the first one.
Man of Steel is a visual treat (minus the HORRIBLE zoom cam). Whilst I think some of the dialog and the 'I think I really like/love you after only seeing you for minutes' with Lois irked me, it was just a good action film. It had some epic action it that surpassed the Avengers.
When i think about man of steel action it was not as varied as thor 2 or the Avengers.
Man of steel action was the most destructive on earth and the action was faster on average.
Thor in thor 2 at the end was moving really fast in some scenes however.
IT REMINDED ME OF MAN OF STEEL.
In fact a lot of action scenes reminded me of man of steel but had it's own fighting style at the same time.
That a good thing and i hope they keep it up.
The action scenes in thor 2 was the most complete however.
You see whole armies going at it,more clear fighting,and longer and more clear air combat and the fight scenes were more varied and like said,more clear.
The action in man of steel was just more in your face widespread destruction.
That's the first time we see that in a film but thor 2 and the Avengers had some action scenes we never seen before too on film and in a marvel film.
I really like all of it however,but since thor 2 was the most varied i think i like thor 2 action better on average,and it reminded me more of star wars or combination of star wars and man of steel,but i like the music in man of steel better on average.
Thor 2 had the most action.
I was surprised nobody complained about that.
I counted the minutes of action in both and thor 2 had the most action.
Man of steel had about the same amount of action overall as the Avengers.
So i guess when folks see a superman film they expect less action,more love stories, comedy,cat rescues,more human rescues and more smiles.
Yeah, there's another thread for Man of Steel Superman vs Movie Thor.
This is more about which movie you enjoyed more. Unlike a lot of folks,
I really liked Thor TDW, but MOS was my favourite film of 2013, by a long way.
But....
....here are some things to think about if you're really keen on arguing Thor v Superman (movie versions)
1. Who would win in a fight between these two, who's stronger and who's more powerful. Can pretty much answer these all in one go.
- in TDW Thor fights a being close to his own strength level, Kurse, How did that work out for him...... Superman fights Zod, who has the same level of powers, who wins that one ? Superman kills him with his bare hands.
In MOS Superman fights 2 beings close to his own strength, at the same time, sure he gets KO'ed briefly, but then fights them off, and does a lot better than Thor, who mostly does damage to Kurse's fists ...with his face.
Watch Thor v Loki in Avengers, they don't even do much property damage to Stark Tower. Superman v Zod, smashes buildings just from the impacts.
Kurse knocks down Thor with a big rock, after which he pummels Thor. Superman gets hit by a train, thrown from a mile away, by another Kryptonian, and walks away without a scratch.
On the same note, who won Thor v Hulk ? Not Thor.
As far as Mjolnir's speed ? Kurse flicked it away, Hulk caught it. Neither of those characters possess super-speed. Don't think Superman who actually does have super-speed would have much trouble with it.
Thor doesn't display any strength even close to that which Supes displays in MOS (and that includes when he holds up the tower, after which he continues to get stronger).
Some people are suggesting Thor has some kind of super-speed. Why did he have to jog down the road to fight Malekith in TDW ? No super-speed there.
Even if we put aside the obvious Speed and mobility advantage (as in Superman can fly without a magic hammer) to Superman, all in all, I didn't see Thor display any kind of strength or invulnerability that would come close to that which Superman displayed in MOS - particularly after the battering he took at the hands of Kurse. As far as Mjolnir goes, well, it didn't make a decisive difference in the fights with the Hulk or Kurse (it's awesome against beings less powerful than Thor, like the frost giants, or the rock giant in TDW) and I highly doubt it would against Superman.
I think the Avengers Hulk would be a really tough fight for MOS Superman, and Thor wouldn't be easy, but I'm convinced Superman would come out on top.
In the end though, that's still my opinion based on what I saw in the films, so if people want to believe that Thor would win, fair enough - but I can't agree.
4. Which actor did it better?
Now this is up to whoever's watching the film. Chris Hemsworth (don't know who Chris Henson is) did a great job. I'm not a Thor fan - but I liked his version of Thor, which is a great achievement, as I find the character boring, but he made Thor likeable, so very well done there. Again, I'm not really a Thor fan, so I can totally understand if people feel that Chris was the better performer.
Personally, I prefer Superman, and thought Cavill did an amazing job of making him a regular guy, who we can relate to, despite having godlike power. But that's just my opinion.
Kurse is stronger then hulk and thor in comics and it seems so in the movie.
Thor was fighting Kurse hand to hand and not using his hammer and it's powers giving Kurse a major advantage.Same thing with hulk and the thor fight.
If thor does not use his hammer correctly he is not as powerful as hulk,Kurse or superman,and that's the comic version.
Hulk is becomes stronger then supeman if the battle goes on,of course i don't believe hulk as limitless strength,just like i don't believe modern superman has limitless strength.
Superman is more powerful then hulk in comics and the movies,but not stronger.Thor is more powerful then superman and hulk in comics,but not as strong has hulk but strong as superman in both comics and movies.
I agree with the first and last posters i put in my post above.I believe looking at thor in all the films so far,he still is overall more powerful then superman,but is he has strong?that one is abit hard.
I think they are about equal.
Now who could win?i say thor for most of time.Some tie's,and some other times tho could lose,but i think thor wins most of time if he gets his act together fully.
i think this would be more like comic thor and comic superman of course both versions in comic are more powerful so far then their movie version.
Same with hulk and Kurse.
Yeah, there's another thread for Man of Steel Superman vs Movie Thor.
This is more about which movie you enjoyed more. Unlike a lot of folks,
I really liked Thor TDW, but MOS was my favourite film of 2013, by a long way.
But....
....here are some things to think about if you're really keen on arguing Thor v Superman (movie versions)
1. Who would win in a fight between these two, who's stronger and who's more powerful. Can pretty much answer these all in one go.
- in TDW Thor fights a being close to his own strength level, Kurse, How did that work out for him...... Superman fights Zod, who has the same level of powers, who wins that one ? Superman kills him with his bare hands.
In MOS Superman fights 2 beings close to his own strength, at the same time, sure he gets KO'ed briefly, but then fights them off, and does a lot better than Thor, who mostly does damage to Kurse's fists ...with his face.
Watch Thor v Loki in Avengers, they don't even do much property damage to Stark Tower. Superman v Zod, smashes buildings just from the impacts.
Kurse knocks down Thor with a big rock, after which he pummels Thor. Superman gets hit by a train, thrown from a mile away, by another Kryptonian, and walks away without a scratch.
On the same note, who won Thor v Hulk ? Not Thor.
As far as Mjolnir's speed ? Kurse flicked it away, Hulk caught it. Neither of those characters possess super-speed. Don't think Superman who actually does have super-speed would have much trouble with it.
Thor doesn't display any strength even close to that which Supes displays in MOS (and that includes when he holds up the tower, after which he continues to get stronger).
Some people are suggesting Thor has some kind of super-speed. Why did he have to jog down the road to fight Malekith in TDW ? No super-speed there.
Even if we put aside the obvious Speed and mobility advantage (as in Superman can fly without a magic hammer) to Superman, all in all, I didn't see Thor display any kind of strength or invulnerability that would come close to that which Superman displayed in MOS - particularly after the battering he took at the hands of Kurse. As far as Mjolnir goes, well, it didn't make a decisive difference in the fights with the Hulk or Kurse (it's awesome against beings less powerful than Thor, like the frost giants, or the rock giant in TDW) and I highly doubt it would against Superman.
I think the Avengers Hulk would be a really tough fight for MOS Superman, and Thor wouldn't be easy, but I'm convinced Superman would come out on top.
In the end though, that's still my opinion based on what I saw in the films, so if people want to believe that Thor would win, fair enough - but I can't agree.
4. Which actor did it better?
Now this is up to whoever's watching the film. Chris Hemsworth (don't know who Chris Henson is) did a great job. I'm not a Thor fan - but I liked his version of Thor, which is a great achievement, as I find the character boring, but he made Thor likeable, so very well done there. Again, I'm not really a Thor fan, so I can totally understand if people feel that Chris was the better performer.
Personally, I prefer Superman, and thought Cavill did an amazing job of making him a regular guy, who we can relate to, despite having godlike power. But that's just my opinion.
Kurse is stronger then hulk and thor in comics and it seems so in the movie.
Thor was fighting Kurse hand to hand and not using his hammer and it's powers giving Kurse a major advantage.Same thing with hulk and the thor fight.
If thor does not use his hammer correctly he is not as powerful as hulk,Kurse or superman,and that's the comic version.
Hulk becomes stronger then supeman if the battle goes on,of course i don't believe hulk as limitless strength,just like i don't believe modern superman has limitless strength.
Superman is more powerful then hulk in comics and the movies,but not stronger.
Thor is more powerful then superman and hulk in comics,but not as strong has hulk but strong as superman in both comics and movies.
I agree more with the first and last poster i put in my post above and most with the middle one except the superman is stronger part.
I believe looking at thor in all the films so far,he still is overall more powerful then superman,but is he has strong?that one is abit hard.
I think they are about equal.
Now who could win?i say thor for most of time.Some tie's,and some other times tho could lose,but i think thor wins most of time if he gets his act together fully.
i think this would be more like comic thor and comic superman of course both versions in comic are more powerful so far then their movie version.
Same with hulk and Kurse.
When i think about movie thor he could be as strong and mos superman,but maybe not as durable and invulnerability.
Movie thor gets slap by jane and it's like he felt that and he bleeds fighting other really strong superheros or villains.
To be fair movie hulk and movie kurse are stronger and more invulnerability and durable.
Well movie kurse was clearly more stronger.
So thinking about it again movie thor physically, i don't think is as powerful as superman or hulk.
There are two separate things going here.
If someone was to ask who is stronger,movie thor or mos superman? i would say tie,but who is more durable and who has greater invulnerability or who could take a punch better?it would be superman it seems.
But who is more powerful? i still think movie thor.
The hammer still does amazing stuff.
So even if mos superman is stronger then movie thor,it's not that much and thor overall still seems more powerful,but only with his hammer.
Let us not forget that Kurse has armor that helps him more then thor.
Hulk and thor do have superspeed.
Thor and hulk move fast in thier movies comics and cartoons.
Thor tends too have fast combat speeed as superman but he does move fast when he want too.
The first hulk movie,hulk was moving really fast.
Anyway thor could fly faster then superman.Superman only flies near the speed of light,thor goes beyond it.
Kurse
Valgoth (Earth-616)
Powers and Abilities
Powers
Superhuman Strength: The original level of Algrim's strength is unknown, but he was apparently the strongest of the Dark Elves. However, his strength was below that of Thor. After being transformed into his present form, Kurse was said to have double the strength of Thor. After Thor donned his enchanted Belt of Strength to make his strength on par with Kurse's once more, The Beyonder further augmented Kurse's strength to four times that of Thor.
Superhuman Speed: Kurse was capable of running and moving at speeds much greater than those of even the finest human athlete.
Superhuman Stamina: Kurse's body produced almost no fatigue toxins during physical activity, granting him almost limitless physical stamina.
Superhuman Durability: Kurse's body was incredibly resistant to all forms of physical injury. He was capable of withstanding tremendous impact forces, falls from great heights, extreme temperatures and pressures, and powerful blows from Thor's hammer without sustaining injury. Kurse was even capable of surviving for days at a time without the need to breathe.
Living Armor: Once again, due to the Beyonder's augmentation, Kurse's armor was a living part of him, growing organically, and helped contribute to his already staggering durability.
Extended Longevity: Although not immortal, Kurse did age at a pace much more slowly when compared to human beings. Kurse was also immune to all known Earthly diseases and infections.
Psionic Tracking: Kurse possessed an unusual ability that enabled him to mentally sense and track an individual, even if that individual was thousands of miles away. The full limits of this ability have not been revealed.
Abilities
Kurse was a formidable hand to hand combatant, relying primarily on brawling techniques that allowed him to make full use of his vast strength.
Strength level
Class 100+ (all forms)
Weaknesses
Like all Dark Elves, Kurse is vulnerable to iron. A blow from iron can harm him whereas an equally strong blow from a different substance would not harm him at all.
Correction-
Superman could go faster then light from what i read but he can't go transwarp speed,but thor can.
Thor in the comics now could fly without his hammer.
Comic thor and hulk info below.
Thor
Superhuman Speed
Thor has the ability to fly at great speed far beyond the abilities of a human being. He is often seen flying at very fast speeds, and has even kept up with the Silver Surfer. He has flown faster than light on multiple occasions. Though Thor’s running speed has never been accurately measured he has been seen moving at speeds faster that the finest human athlete.
Hulk has always been noted to have great superhuman speed despite his size due to the power of his gamma-charged body.
Hulk can easily exceed the speed of sound with his punches (as it's made evident with the air-shock waves he produces) and super-leaps.
Hulk can run up to 300 miles per hour, and jump so high and fast he can achieve stable orbit.
He's also caught fighter jets and missiles through the use of super-leaps or reaching out to them with his bare hands.
Hulk usually jumps rather than runs to travel because once he reaches a certain anger level he is unable to run because he breaks apart the ground underneath him, giving him no friction to run on.
Hulk can resist gravity. He went up against Graviton
who was making it literally impossible for anyone to move a muscle. While the Likes of Iron Man, Wasp and Thor lay pinned to the ground, Hulk was moving despite Graviton putting tons of extra weight on him on top of the containers he was throwing to stop Hulk from moving. This is the most likely reason why Hulk is incredibly fast. He can defy gravity.
Vast Superhuman Durability
Hulk's skin is extremely durable, his skin can easily resist a Ground Zero explosion, Human Torch's Nova Blast, planet-Shattering impacts, and a blast from Galactus. Hulks durability also increases with his rage. Hulk has also been able to take a blast which Ultron used to soften and manipulate adamantium.
Healing Factor
In proportion to stress, Hulk can instantly renew and augment the atomic-molecular structure of the most basic biological component, the DNA/amino acids, from which all the various uniquely tasked proteins, categorized by cell type and multiplied into tissues and organs, are formed. Hulk's healing factor is superior to that of Wolverine's because it is not limited in the energy necessary to maintain this core foundation.
Some say thor is stronger then superman in the comics too,and that could be true,but movie thor seems about the same level or a tie to mos superman to me.
Thor
Powers and abilities
Like all Asgardians, Thor is incredibly long-lived and relies upon periodic consumption of the Golden Apples of Idunn to sustain his extended lifespan, which to date has lasted many millennia. Being the son of Odin and the elder goddess Gaea, Thor is physically the strongest of the Asgardians. If pressed in battle, Thor is capable of entering into a state known as the "Warrior's Madness" ("berserkergang" in Norwegian), which will temporarily increase his strength and stamina tenfold, although in this state he attacks friend and foe alike.
Thor possesses a very high resistance to physical injury that approaches invulnerability. Thor possesses keen senses that allow him to track objects traveling faster than light and hear cries from the other side of the planet. Thor has the ability to travel through time.His stamina allowed him to battle the entire Frost Giant army for nine months without any sustenance or rest; Thor has shown the ability to regenerate wounded portions of his body, including entire limbs or organs, with the aid of magical forces such as Mjolnir. Thor has superhuman speed, agility, and reflexes, enabling him to deflect bullets with his hammer. Like all Asgardians, he has immunity to all Earthly diseases and some resistance to magic. Exceptionally powerful magic can overwhelm Odin's enchantment that transforms him between Asgardian and mortal forms.
As the Norse god of thunder, Thor can summon the elements of the storm (lightning; rain; wind; snow) and uses Mjolnir as a tool to focus this ability, although the hammer cannot command artificial weather, only natural. He can cause these weather effects over the world and destroy entire buildings; by whirling his hammer he can lift entire buildings with the wind. As the son of the Earth goddess Gaea, Thor has shown some control over the Earth.
Thor is a superb hand-to-hand combatant, and is skilled in armed combat, excelling in the use of the war hammer, sword, axe and mace. Thor possesses two items which assist him in combat: the enchanted Belt of Strength, and his signature weapon, the mystical hammer Mjolnir. The first item doubles Thor's strength and endurance while the second is used to control his weather abilities; flight; energy projection and absorption; dimensional travel; matter manipulation and the most powerful of his offensives, the God Blast (which taps into Thor's life force), the Thermo-blast, and the Anti-Force (which counteracts another force). Using Mjolnir by throwing in the desired direction and then holding on to the handle's leather loop, Thor can fly at supersonic speeds in Earth's atmosphere and travel faster than light in space. When Thor has to transport companions and/or objects to a destination by himself, he has a chariot drawn by two huge mystical goats called Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder that can fly nearly anywhere he desires almost as easily as with Mjolnir. He can throw an object out of Earth's atmosphere using his strength, and throw his hammer to Asgard from which it will return.
It seems that the avengers action is rated higher then man of steel.I explained some of the reasons myself for that above and the avengers have more action and man of steel really had less.
It was about the same amount as ironman 3.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
