November Rain
Single Mother
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 13,322
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
People give way too much criticism to "feats of strength" and "epicness" of these movies. Yeah they're nice but I didn't care at all when Superman lifted the damn kryptonite mountain. And is blasting a giant hole in the back of a massive ice monster's head with one's SELF really "dumbed down"?
As for "it wasn't epic enough! Should've been more like Transformers," that argument sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it? Does every single one of these movies have to be about "SAVING THE UNIVERSE"? I liked that Thor took place in a tiny New Mexico town to contrast the vastness of Asgard. It kept the story focused on Thor and didn't have the same feel almost every other superhero movie has had in a big city like some so unwisely (I'd say) would rather it to be. We'll get some epic superhero movies in a pinch (The Avengers) that aren't the same lame "epic" movies people have wanted them to be like (Transformers, 2012, Independence Day, etc.)
alright, let's be fair, what would be the point of putting together such a team if a threat could be dealt with individually so to speak?
and i didn't mind thor's new mexico setting although why build an entire village if you aren't going to destroy it in a fight.
take in point, why would odin ask the destroyer to guard his trophy room when someone lilke thor could easily take him apart.
i think the acts of strength generally enhance the threat level of the oponent they are facing.
why assemble earth's mightiest heroes for earth's most mediocre threat to be dealth with in earth's most boring feats of heroism?
it's almost like having an x-man film with no display of powers

