Man of Steel vs Thor TDW, seen 'em both, what do you folks think ? Compare/contrast

[ares834]

Movies can be evaluated through subjective and objective means, blockbusters post-Spielberg's influence are more easily evaluated in objective ways because they all follow a similar structure and try to postray similar themes.

"Objective means"... What are these so called "objective means" in film criticism?

 

[Hammer!]

Thor: The Dark World by a little. First Thor blows both off them out of the water.

 

[Lord]

"Objective means"... What are these so called "objective means" in film criticism?

Plot, structure, character development, image, etc.

 

[ares834]

Plot, structure, character development, image, etc.

All of which are almost entirely subjective.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

the problem with some people is that they think they are being objective but they're not. also some of them have superiority complex and dismisses everything that gives dissent to what they say.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Plot, structure, character development, image, etc.

If you aren't familiar with William Goldman, please look him up, especially his quote about what people "know" about the movie industry.

His views, as the screen writer for BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID and THE PRINCESS BRIDE carry just a smidge of weight with me.

 

[Lord]

All of which are almost entirely subjective.

Not really, since Spielberg's coming most blockbusters have been trying to follow a certain structure, so it's much easier to evaluate blockbusters objectivelly than other deeper films. You have things like character arcs to give you an idea of how well the character is done, pacing is more subjective but still the same in most films nowadays.

No, i'm not allways objective, and i did enjoy The Man of Steel, but it wasn't really a good movie.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Once again... I think Bill Goldman is on to something.


And when you can write out that equation for the Unified Field Theory of Arts and Entertainment, let us all in on it.

 

[sf2]

Thor 2 had a bit more charm and didn't take itself so seriously, which i consider a positive. Hemsworth and Hiddleston were again fantastic. I liked their relationship. I also really liked Frigga and Loki's relationship, even if it was only shown briefly, it was effective and i truly believed that Loki loved her and her death spurred him on. Her funeral was stunning. Visually it was also really good. The attack on Asgard and the escape from Asgard were awesome. I also liked the finale and the way the worm holes were used in the fight. Like MoS it had fantastic production design. Asgard looked fantastic. Malekith was a weak villain though. Eccleston was wasted. Hopkins totally phoned it in as Odin. A lot of the comedy fell flat, although the scene where Selvig is explaining his theories then it's shown he is in a nut house really made me laugh.

Overall, they are about even for me. I enjoy them both, but was also disappointed in some ways. 7/10.

to me, the attack and escape from Asgard are just so so. we have been spoilt and have seen too much CGI works. so what Asgard shown is nothing. the finale fight is so terrible. nothing have the 'wow' effects. just plain visually and emotionally.

all the best scenes have already shown in the trailer. - the floating truck and the alien space ship arriving at the river bank. that's it.

btw, have u rewatched it in a TV? it isn't that redeemable.

 

[The Endless]

Yea we have been spoilt to a degree. But i just liked the design of Asgard, the design of the ships, the way it was shot and edited. An important thing in action scenes, maybe the most important is the geography. It all looked like one continuous scene, it was edited really well.

Compare that with a favourite of mine in the genre, TDK, and the geography and editing of the action scenes just don't compare. In the chase scenes cars appear and reappear in different places. In the fight scenes characters are in position in one shot, then in another shot they are somewhere else. It just doesn't make sense and you can tell it's been chopped up and put back together in the editing room. It's not seamless.

With Thor 2, there isn't that problem. The action scenes are seamless and the geography all makes sense. Even in the tricky parts with the wormholes. MoS is also really good at this too. Both are right up there in terms of how action scenes should be shot and edited for me.

 

[Lord]

Thor 2 didn't have amazing action scenes, but i really liked the way they made the final one so entertaining, the wormhole appearing and disappearing, as well as the way it was handled were very creative. But i have to admit that not everyone may have enjoyed that type of stuff.

 

[The Endless]

Outside of Avengers and maybe IM3 they were definitely the best Marvel has done. And outside of MoS definitely better than any DC superhero film, for me anyway.

 

[BH/HHH]

I watched T:TDW yesterday for the first time. It took nearly an hour to really hook me in, the tonal change between the first and the second one was abit much for me. But thankfully the film really got going in the second hour, not surprisingly when Loki came into the film.

I really don't think you can compare it to Man of Steel though, it didn't feel as large and the action paled in comparison to MOS. But Thor 2 was decent and I really enjoyed it.

 

[ares834]

Not really, since Spielberg's coming most blockbusters have been trying to follow a certain structure, so it's much easier to evaluate blockbusters objectivelly than other deeper films. You have things like character arcs to give you an idea of how well the character is done, pacing is more subjective but still the same in most films nowadays.

And people will have different opinions on what constitutes a good character arc.

Furthermore, just because Blockbusters tend to follow a certain structure does not mean they can be objectively evaluated. One could asses how well they follow said formula, but if they deviate from the formula or fail to match it in certain ways that is not an objectively bad thing.

No, i'm not allways objective, and i did enjoy The Man of Steel, but it wasn't really a good movie.

Although, I'd probably agree with it. I'd say MoS was a decent movie not much more.

 

[The Endless]

Some things don't come down to opinion.

For example, Batman & Robin is a poorly made film. It has terrible acting. A stupid story. Disjointed editing etc. Where opinion comes into it is... I enjoy the hell out of it because it makes me chuckle. I can recognise it's a poorly made film though. I'm not insecure about my opinions, I don't need to justify myself liking it by pretending it's a well made film. It's objectively not a well made film. But i don't care.

Or a more extreme example. Sharknado (yes this is a real film) is truly awful on every single level. It is a bad film. That is a fact. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Just don't try to come up with a load of nonsense saying it's well made.

 

[ares834]

You see much of that is still subjective. For example, how do you assess acting? You judge it by how believable the performance is to you, it's subjective. I recall after seeing the new Ender's Game movie my friends and I had an argument about whether the kid who portrayed Ender was a good actor, some said he was good others said he was the worst thing since lil' Anakin. But none of us were right or wrong, we just had different opinions on his acting ability. Story (plot) is the same way.

Now you're right there is some objectivity in film critique but that's rather small.

 

[The Endless]

Hmmm you have a point there. There is different shades and degrees.

But trust me watch Sharknado and try to defend the acting and writing in that

 

[Herolee10]

Okay, here's a question for everyone...

What did you guys find/enjoy better between...

Superman stopping the World Engine & Thor stopping Malekith in Greenwich?

Also...

Who's death scene did you find more tragic between Pa Kent and Frigga?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Superman stopping the world engine (with that uplifting Zimmer score) >>> Thor stopping Malekith (which did nothing for me)

Pa Kent's death scene (with that quiet, beautiful piano melody) >>> Frigga's death scene (which also did nothing for me)

 

[BH/HHH]

Whose Frigga again?

 

[sf2]

Lol.
I think if Thor2 released in summer last year, it would not do this good as it action looks inferior as compare to other summer release block buster movies. Story wisr just standard.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Okay, here's a question for everyone...

What did you guys find/enjoy better between...

Superman stopping the World Engine & Thor stopping Malekith in Greenwich?

Also...

Who's death scene did you find more tragic between Pa Kent and Frigga?

One and one. Superman vs the World Engine was really good and Thor's climax was once again some cheap comedy.

But Frigga's death made much more sense than Pa Kent's which made it more tragic to me.

Lol.
I think if Thor2 released in summer last year, it would not do this good as it action looks inferior as compare to other summer release block buster movies. Story wisr just standard.

Story standard, dialogues poor and the characters were barely developed. If any. Other than the action, there's little to value in Thor 2.

 

[BH/HHH]

Is Frigga the Mother? I really don't remember anyone called that

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It was hard to forget the only character I cared for and that was truly well acted.

 

[Milu]

You honestly think Marvel studios' worst is better than MOS. As in Iron Man 3!? Ghost Rider...really. Wow.

Sorry for the late response, haven't been on lately.

First, Iron Man 3 might not have been SUPER OMG SERIOUS like Man Of Steel, but I fail to see how that makes MOS superior. I also fail to see how a movie like MOS, with its numerous issues, can hold a candle to anything from the MCU canon, but I guess because it takes itself more seriously that excuses its questionable pacing and generally mediocre script.

Secondly, Ghost Rider is not Marvel Studios. It's Columbia/Sony/Marvel.