Rate Thor the Darkworld..............Once and for all

[Visualiza]

7/10 and I feel this thread is redundant

True. There's been a lot of that lately.

 

[Victarion]

Given that the director was coming from Game of Thrones, I expected a stronger film than what we were given. The biggest problem with this movie is that it was just a means of setting up future entries in the MCU at the expense of a good plot and developed characters.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Not to speak for the person you quoted or anything, but IMO, it was the overall package that seemed as if was made by committee. Most seem to agree that the Loki/Thor dynamic was well executed, in spite of the rest of the movie being average.

All of this is beside the point. Being based on a good story in no way guarantees success. There are enough poor cinematic adaptations out there, that I'm sure we've all seen, to support this. Even so, GotG is next to nothing like the DnA run (let alone the events leading up to it that formed the team in the first place), and I don't think it's a stretch to say that TWS was different enough from the Brubaker story to stand on its own merits.

All of these movies have to hit certain wickets as they pertain to the MCU at large, so that isn't a very good excuse as to why TDW was so lacking. At the end of the day, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way, irrespective of the obstacles or obligations that are just a part of the process.

While I would like to see the movies draw from some of the more memorable stories (who wouldn't?), that still doesn't excuse a lack of direction in the meantime. If the filmmakers know that they won't be adapting a classic story, then they still need to do their due diligence of crafting a suitable original story in the here and now. It's not an insurmountable task.

You make some valid points but the fact that some adaptations of good source material being bad does not negate the value of having good source material. The best comic to film adaptations IMO had strong source material. The Dark Knight was inspired by the Long Halloween. Spider-Man 2 inspired by the Lee/Romita's "Spider-Man No More". Iron Man ripped right from his origin in Tales of Suspense.

I wouldn't say GOTG was nothing like DnA. It's been a while since I've read that run but I thought it very much captured the spirit of it and the team dynamic was the driver. There's been a few incarnations of GOTG but the DnA was arguably the strongest version. DnA is definitely in that movie's DNA. And TWS had iconic scenes lifted straight from the comics like "Who the hell is Bucky", centers around Cap's torment and desire to save his friend and could be argued as a mashup of sorts with another classic Fury vs. SHIELD.

I also don't understand the "movie made by committee" comment when Alan Taylor put his name at the end and publicly bristled over Gunn's mid credits addition being included with his movie. It's fine if you don't like his movie but it's his movie.

Ultimately though we are coming from two different perspectives here. Unlike you I feel the film was highly entertaining and delivered on many levels so I'm not trying to make "excuses". My point here is that specifically these are comic books being adapted and we're talking about "vision". Thor is far out fantasy, gods talking funny. He's probably never going to resonate like something closer to our own experience like Cap (although I certainly don't think Marvel should stop trying). Cap 2 can do the whole grounded thing and touch on real world issues like terrorism, NSA, Snowden. Stuff like that really hits home. What's wrong with a film like Thor just being a fun romp? Thor has 50 years of comic history and a lot of that time he isn't always the brightest and likes to hit stuff with his hammer to solve his problems. There's typically no social commentary going on. Shane Black could make a witty comment about the media and terrorism but Asgardian gods aren't real.

I feel there's definitely more powerful Thor stories to be told but this was still a good movie for my money and being as I like it a lot I can't help but stick up for it.

 

[Visualiza]

You make some valid points but the fact that some adaptations of good source material being bad does not negate the value of having good source material.

No doubt, and I wasn't trying to imply that, rather that the reverse is also true. In other words, an adaptation with a revered source shouldn't be taken for granted. It can go wrong, and my point is that it should be handled as carefully as something untested or more original.

I also don't understand the "movie made by committee" comment when Alan Taylor put his name at the end and publicly bristled over Gunn's mid credits addition being included with his movie. It's fine if you don't like his movie but it's his movie.

And I never sought to deprive him of that, which is why I said it seemed like a movie made by committee. Even so, he's as responsible for the outcome as all parties involved.

Ultimately though we are coming from two different perspectives here. Unlike you I feel the film was highly entertaining and delivered on many levels so I'm not trying to make "excuses". My point here is that specifically these are comic books being adapted and we're talking about "vision". Thor is far out fantasy, gods talking funny. He's probably never going to resonate like something closer to our own experience like Cap (although I certainly don't think Marvel should stop trying). Cap 2 can do the whole grounded thing and touch on real world issues like terrorism, NSA, Snowden. Stuff like that really hits home. What's wrong with a film like Thor just being a fun romp? Thor has 50 years of comic history and a lot of that time he isn't always the brightest and likes to hit stuff with his hammer to solve his problems. There's typically no social commentary going on. Shane Black could make a witty comment about the media and terrorism but Asgardian gods aren't real.

I feel there's definitely more powerful Thor stories to be told but this was still a good movie for my money and being as I like it a lot I can't help but stick up for it.

Believe it or not, I actually did find it to be an entertaining movie, but also a disappointing one. Personally, I found the much maligned humor to be well done, but unfortunately it was one of the few things that kept me interested, which says something about how lukewarm everything else was. It wasn't bad, just ok, but I do think it's the worst of the MCU thus far.

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that there are some good Thor stories to be told. Loved the first movie, and I hope that Ragnarok is at least as good (preferably better, of course).

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Well the way I see it - you can't please everybody. But every once in a while you deliver a film that reaches an extremely high level of consensus. Marvel's done that at least 4 times in their short run: Iron Man, Avengers, Winter Solider and now Guardians of the Galaxy. It's quite remarkable really and as fans I think we might be getting spoiled by it. I find I like some of their films more so than others but I've yet to be disappointed by anything they've done so far (Iron Man 3 came the closest I would say). I'm having way too much fun. But Marvel seems to be striving for the highest possible quality to their films. They've never brought a director back who didn't hit it out of the park and they keep their finger on the pulse of the fans. As much as I loved TDW, Feige's comments during the Phase III reveal about Ragnarok tells me they're well aware of the divisive reception of Thor's last film. I'm supremely optimistic that they will find the right talent to helm the next film and that Ragnarok will deliver the goods.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The worst MCU film.

Almost turned it off mid-film.

5/10

 

[Loki882]

Oh it's definitely got some good elements:

-The acting was good for the most part.
-The Thor/Loki dynamic was great as usual (Hemsworth/Hiddleston play off of each other so well).
-Loki in general.
-The Asgardians were good for what little we got to see them (the problem is that we got so little of them).
-It looks good and it's got some cool action scenes.

But the flaws:

-And incredibly boring and underdeveloped villain.
-A very thin plot that is basically just stringing along a bunch of set pieces.
-A terribly portrayed "love story."
-Underusing the Asgardians AGAIN.
-Too much comedy that was out of place, and just not particularly funny a lot of the time.
-Thor himself doesn't really change or grow much. The only character who really has any kind of arc is Loki.
-Some of the actors clearly weren't terribly invested in the material (most notably Portman and Hopkins). Not that I can fully blame them.

 

[WBwins]

But the flaws:

-And incredibly boring and underdeveloped villain.
-A very thin plot that is basically just stringing along a bunch of set pieces.
-A terribly portrayed "love story."
-Underusing the Asgardians AGAIN.
-Too much comedy that was out of place, and just not particularly funny a lot of the time.
-Thor himself doesn't really change or grow much. The only character who really has any kind of arc is Loki.
-Some of the actors clearly weren't terribly invested in the material (most notably Portman and Hopkins). Not that I can fully blame them.

Agreed on all.
An average movie that I fiund disappionting

 

[Human Torch]

Well nice to know I'm not the only one. However, I liked all the characters - and the humor. I thought Darcy was much funnier than the first film and Ian was hysterical. The only other MCU film's humor I enjoyed more was in the Avengers. I also love films like Spider-Man 2 and the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies so I guess I can enjoy the sillier moments in films based on funny books without having a angsty emo cow over it.

But humor is a very subjective thing. Everybody's tastes are different. I'm obviously an outlier here on this site and I'm OK with that.

Just to keep the record straight,I don't hate Darcy/Humor in the MCU films.Thought she was alright in TDW,but I thought she was funnier in Thor.

I think what they did with Selvig was probably more problematic than anything they did with Darcy. I just felt embarrassed for him,more than anything.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Poor.

Loki882 above summed it up well.

Though since Avengers I found Loki to be too smarmy and a moustache twirling caricature of the great character he was in the first Thor.

Like Victarion said it felt like filler to tide people over for six months until the next movie.

 

[DA_Champion]

Thor 2 is truly awful, the worst experience I've ever had in a movie theatre. It's a bad film from top to bottom in all major categories.

The plot is thin, nonsensical, doesn't respect itself, the "jokes" are straight out of Transformers 2 and Waterboy except when they're worse, the score is not memorable and the visuals were bad. The flashback involving Bore fighting the dark elves was boring. The second after the credits scene should have been in the movie.

Some positives: Darcy and Sif are played by beautiful women, the dark elves used evaporating black holes as bombs, and the after the credits scene for GoTG had a 1970s scifi b-movie look to it.

 

[Flint Marko]

Average for an MCU film but among the genre as a whole it's quite good.

Probably the first time I walked out of an MCU film somewhat disappointed and discussing all the ways it could have been better, but if that's the worst Marvel can do that says a lot about the strength of their brand.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

7/10. It is a good film, but the MCU has consistently produced films at such a high level it is middle of the road in comparison to the rest of MCU. I liked it slightly better than Thor (the plot is more interesting, Hiddleston and Hemsworth are more comfortable in their roles by this point, the emotional beats feel more earned), but the two are about at the same level.

 

[WBwins]

I would vote "good", but there is no such option?!

I like the movie, but i think that all people are right who say, that there was wasted potential too...

Well good is Average right?

 

[kedrell]

Well good is Average right?

In the genre as a whole? I wouldn't say so. I'd say average is mediocre, evenly matched between good and bad elements so there's just as much reason to avoid a movie as to see it. A 5-6/10 movie basically.

This is actually an improvement overall because 10 years ago I'd have said an average superhero movie = a bad movie, 4/10 or lower....more reasons to avoid it than to see it.

I rank TtDW along with TIH at a 7.5/10 which is bottom of the barrel for the MCU films, actually. So in that context I take back what I said about it being average for the MCU. It's actually slightly below average. Thor1 was average(gave that an 8/10).

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I have to laugh at some of the hyperbole on this thread.

 

[First Avenger]

I love this movie,to me it is objectively a good movie that I personally enjoy A LOT. I'm sure Ragnarok is going to be amazing though,I can feel it XD. To me it gets FAR too much hate it does not deserve.

-That new Marvel logo was amazing to see for the first time.
-The cast is great
-The visuals are spectacular
-The action was great
-It was quite creative in some spots
-The costumes and make-up are fantastic
-Loved the family dynamics
-Dat funeral
-Thor/Loki relationship is always a joy to watch
-The humor was pretty on par with the first one IMO
-The whole escape plan was great
-I actually think Thor was very well characterized and actually showed growth compared to the first movie
-Kurse was Bad@ss
-The first act dragged a bit
-Malekith was underdeveloped
-Would have liked more Sif/W3
-Don't really mind Darcy

 

[Shakel92]

I loved it. It was better than IM3 (which I also loved!), but not as good as C:TWS or GotG.

Phase II > Phase I...so far.

 

[Snow Queen]

Frustratingly mediocre.

 

[def28]

Thought it was a fun flick.

7/10

 

[Steamteck]

I enjoyed it. Not as good as the first one but still a fun film. It didn't seem to quite go for it on many levels but still was a fun ride.

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

Thor will be a reverse Iron Man. Thor 3 will be great while the first two were not. Like how Iron Man 1 was great and the other two were not.

 

[Steamteck]

Thor will be a reverse Iron Man. Thor 3 will be great while the first two were not. Like how Iron Man 1 was great and the other two were not.

Iron Man 2 wasn't that bad, just inferior to the first. Watch it and IM3 together and you'll appreciate 2 more.

 

[Bim]

I loved it!

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Whether you thought it was subpar or great or somewhere in between it seems everyone gets where people are coming from with their opinions (the "worst/best movie evah!" responses are so miniscule that they can be safely ignored as hyperbolic outliers) .

TDW is not a controversial film despite the mixed reviews. It's got some good stuff it's got some bad stuff and the vast majority of us recognize the pros and cons.

6.5 from me. Darcy doesn't annoy me quite as much as some of you so it only loses half a point.